To me there is NO way to spin this

Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
To me there is NO way to spin this
37
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 4:53pm

I just believe that it is wrong and the Judge should be dis-barred :(

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 5:32pm
Dagnabit. That old second person plural again causing someone confusion. I have to be more careful when I use it. I've added some words just for you and anyone else who might be confused by what I meant. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make it clearer.

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 5:16pm
Gee, it could be the "you" directed at me.
Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 11:34am

It reminds me of a case several years ago, in which a father had married off his underage dds to friends of his. The girls escaped and went to the police. Some people were arguing that the father's "cultural difference" should be respected, although the argument did not fly.

I agree that the judge's ruling was wrong, but I do not think a specific anti-Sharia law to prevent such rulings is very sensible. There are Christians who believe equally stupid nonsense, and a judge could just as well take that into consideration, wrongly.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
– George Orwell
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 9:20am

If you don't fit into that category then why would you assume I was talking about you?

I may manage a lot of Excel Spreadsheets but I don't have one for this message board.

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 8:36am

<>

Because an administrator informs the school just how much time will be taken for test preparation in the month leading up to the test. Since there are two tests in my district, that's two months. Additionally, teachers are informed what particularly they need to focus on which isn't necessarily what the benchmarks are. So whether you "believe" it is not "part of the requirement," you would be incorrect. I lived it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 8:32am

<>

Seriously? I don't pay taxes? I'll have to notify the IRS and my state that I need a refund.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Tue, 09-14-2010 - 8:31am

<>

That's a bit presumptuous, particularly since I clarified that I didn't justify it has "OK".

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 11:46pm

I think one of the dumbest things I've ever seen/heard is teacher's using no child left behind as a reason to teach to the standardized test.

Why in the world can't they just teach?

I never taught to one single test but what I did do is teach hard skills. My students were taught how to read and read well and of course they were well taught in mathematics as well. I don't believe that they ever once scored below the 90% percentile on a single standardized test. Oh, and they loved test taking. Guess because it was always taught to be no big thing. But then again when you're not in school learning to be afraid of it--you're actually not. I know lots of others with my exact same experience.

So I have never understood they "need" to teach to the test. I don't believe that was part of the requirement. Too bad not many teachers actually seem to have the courage to forget about teaching to the test and just...taught.

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 11:40pm

Judges, teachers, cops, firefighters, park rangers, you name it. My example was one of "public workers paid for by tax dollars". Teachers and policemen are among the top two that come to most people's minds. Feel free to pick any one you choose. The point is the same. Incompetence can be found in all public fields. Justifying it as "OK" because the system will deal with it is well, lame. Not to mention extremely wasteful. But then again if you're not one actually paying taxes....why care? So I do understand the apathy. It's the reason why I caution having such a small pool of actual tax payers. And if you do pay taxes and don't care--you are an ever greater part of the problem.






Edited 9/14/2010 5:31 pm ET by gripcon
>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2009
Mon, 09-13-2010 - 10:42pm

One thing that I find/found interesting - and really I am just playing devil's advocate here - is the question of when it is ok or not ok to take religion into account in making/enforcing laws?

In this case I think we can all agree it is not ok - but with the question of gay marriage or abortion many (not all) want the rest of the country to subscribe to a particular religious viewpoint. I guess you could argue that in the New Jersey case the woman was definitely being harmed, but couldn't you also argue the woman is being harmed when she can't make decisions about her own body in the case of abortion? Suppose this woman had become pregnant by her ex-husband due to the rape - should she be allowed to have an abortion or would she then have to carry the fetus to term and deal with this man for the rest of her life? Because the 'Right to Life' campaign is largely the product of another religious influence.

Pages