TAHAWK

As I said, a blood sport. Even here.

No. But he raises a point that should be considered before we send our youth to war. It is a point considered by many national leaders, even those who led armies in battle. That answers may vary does not make the question illegitimate.

Politics is a blood sport. N.Y. Times, October 26, 1948:

As Spock has just passed on: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." And: The necessary is not equivalent to the good. It is, nonetheless, necessary. 99's post is why we want children to study war: so they know how awful it is and, sometimes, how necessary. As is sleep.

Source: http://achievethecore.org/page/737/history-social-studies-lessons Absolutely correct. Just published by Huffington Post. I do not preclude the possibility that Huffington Post publishes articles with which it disagrees. Huffington also published Singer's article: "Common Core, What Is It Good For?"" (No, oldsters, not "absolutely nuthin'")

I suppose the day is not totally lost if I can make someone laugh.

Had I know this thread would devolve into name-calling, I would not have started it. As for the objectives of the unit being discussed, here is what Common Core says are the objectives (Not that some of these words from CC were not linked above.): Note "understanding" the speech is an objective. I question an effort to have anyone understand a speech from over a century ago without studying the words in context, as do acknowledged educational experts. How one prevents "reference to context or background knowledge" escapes me. It is like a judge instructing a jury to "disregard" some highly shocking piece of testimony. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"? The Gettysburg Address was not an academic exercise in rhetoric. It was a political speech. "Understanding" is a result of reading it, carefully to be sure, in context. If not everyone understands the context, I submit that a better solution is educating those who do not know rather than attempting to avoid "privilege" reading the speech in a vacuum of ignorance of the context. Try having a candidate for Citizenship in the Nation "understand" the Constitution in the abstract. Are we not guided in an effort to understand the words by knowing that those who wrote the words were revolutionaries who had fought bloody battles against the incumbent, legal government AND who were, in many cases, slave-holders who regarded those of Africans decent as less than fully human?

Didn't the blonde go back to the hotel, only to emerge for dinner?

I am in favor of having everyone fill out the forms. ​An adult refuses to fill out the form and dies due to inappropriate treatment, and his estate sues the troop and BSA for allowing him to come on the "activity" without the completed form? It's part of the human experience to have baseless suits filed against people. I was once sued for $32,000,000.00. Was that supposed to mean anything? Satan and His Staff were once sued in U.S. District Court. (The case was dismissed for failure to achieve personal service on .any of the defendants. The argument that substitute service on the Pope was sufficient was rejected on the grounds that the Pope was not a statutory agent for receipt of service of process for those defendants. The Court also noted that it was doubtful that the Plaintiff, Mr. Gerald Mayo, was an adequate class representative.) Anyone can be sued for anything. Now the medical care provider(s) who rendered the inadequate treatment? They would have problems. How about subcutaneous data chips, Q? Probably better than bar codes.

The lesson is for 9th - 10th graders to be taught over "three-to-six day" ( I should think it would make quite a difference whether three or six days were used.) The detailed instructuions for the teacher may be downloaded from here: http://achievethecore.org/page/35/the-gettysburg-address-by-abraham-lincoln The topic is for History/Social Studies The general objective is for the students to understand the message but to somehow achieve this end absent any context and without using anything they already know. That is not how I learned or taught history. Here is a reasoned critique from Tim Shanahan. Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Urban Education at the University of Illinois and former member of the Advisory Board of the National Institute for Literacy (a Presidential appointment). http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/common-core-watch/how-bad-are-the-common-core-lessons-on-the (A publication of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute for Educational Excellence.) Even the Huffington Post has problems with the Common Core approach: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/reading-without-understan_b_4323239.html The National Endowment for the Humanities urges a much different approach: http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/gettysburg-address-1863mdashdefining-american-union#sect-objectives I have not paid much attention to the Common Core. I believe that I should.

Instructions to teachers: So context is to be prohibited so the words can be "understood" in a vacuum, thus avoiding " privileging background knowledge," 0____0

Is the choice between no drivers and drivers with "inadequate insurance" ? Inadequate as in limits below state minimums (at which BSA secondary coverage kicks in) or inadequate without BSA secondary coverage?

Like every single person here, I do not make BSA policy. I don't even get one vote. Like most here, I think Scouting, with all BSA's faults, is worth supporting. Pretty much the same for the U.S.A. and its faults. You see irony. That's you.

The issues you raise feel like they are about you. You feel there will be a negative reaction. You would be - what? - embarassed? - afraid to offend? (Try selling candy for a non-profit laterly? [Did you know that a candy bar is a "Death Stick"?]) Is Scouting, with what you see as its defects, worth saving? If not, why belong? If "yes," consider risking hurt feelings and promote membership. ("Scouts in my troop go camping every month. Interested?") Or, if "yes," who do you believe should be trying to "sell" Scouting? The "other"?

A book may have a laudable objective and still be badly written. I am going to get a copy. (And Stosh, the number of enclosed malls is steadily decreasing.)

Compare: Officials said the initiative would also focus on improving teacher performance by tying teachers’ salaries to the test scores of the students they hand the assessment to. Officials said the initiative would also focus on improving teacher performance by tying teachers’ salaries to the test scores of the students to whom they hand the assessment. As for April 1st, if we can have unbirthdays 364 days of the year . . . . ​

Sounds good except for the split infinitive in the last sentence. Split infinitives are something up with which I will not put. SOURCE: the ONION In further news: [/h]

We could judge people by their behavior rather than by some arbitrary classification. (The only people living on the Pacific Plate are in Hawaii and other islands.)

Nothing mean that I read. At least from you, pack. Problem is that, regardless of the topic of the suit, the credibility of the witnesses is almost always in play. It might be argued that If you believe that a witness is less as a person because of her sexual orientation or religion, you might accord less weight to her testimony? So we must . . . . .? This, like intentional compensatory discrimination in favor of one class and against others, is a slippery slope. There may be a political answer but there is not likely to be a logical answer once we start banning people from participation in our government (judicial branch or otherwise) because they are deists or straight. And make no mistake, that is what is being done to these judges in California. They are, as a class, being denied the right to participate in government as judges because of their exercise of freedom of association as recognized in the First Amendment - a freedom of association specifically acknowledge by the Supreme Court. "Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out."

Objection sustained. Inferences must be supported by evidence from which a reasonable mind could draw the inference.. An inference may not be based upon an inference. We have no idea what vehicles are in BSA's inventory, do we? Bearing in mind that BSA's insurance is secondary to the driver's own insurance, consider this message from BSA: [emphasis added]

One kinda' cool thing about the Patrol Method is that, given choices, Scouts tend to pick what they believe will be fun. Exactly.

I see all of this every week. It can be Hell to be an SA.

The system assumes that a judge will set aside her personal beliefs and apply the law to the case before her. She swears an oath to that effect. Jurors swear a similar oath to be fair and apply the law as explained to them by Her Honor. We are judging certain people as inherently suspect because of their exercise of freedom of association. Why are we stopping with judges? The entire process must avoid the appearance of impropriety. So no Baptist jurors in a case with a gay or atheist litigant and visa versa.?

"Pretty cold"? 0___0 The surface of the sun is pretty hot? It won't be crowded.