America - The Official Thread

[Joel]

You know, I know that they don't say it is connected, but I have to wonder if this is related to sequestration. Less money = less staff = less stringent rules.

Definitely makes sense. Just wait till the spin machine gets ahold of it

"CONGRESS MAKES FLYING MORE DANGEROUS FOR AVERAGE AMERICANS WHILE THEY TAKE CHARTERED JETS"

 

[Sam48]

A quote from Eric Holder in response to Rand Paul on the issue of domestic Drone usage.

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

 

[Zenith]

"No choice"

 

[Zenith]

When the Fourth Amendment was written, UAVs did not exist. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to them, and searches conducted via that method are unrestricted.

Right?

 

[FoolKiller]

For those who are unaware, this is the beginning of what is becoming an epic long standing, speaking filibuster.

 

[terminator363]

A quote from Eric Holder in response to Rand Paul on the issue of domestic Drone usage.

Yes, a plane collides into something... Then you expect a UAV to shoot at the burning wreckage?

 

[Tesla]

I caught the last half hour or so. Not entirely sure what's going on, though.

 

[FoolKiller]

I caught the last half hour or so. Not entirely sure what's going on, though.

In the US Senate a Senator can block a vote that they oppose by taking the floor to speak and just not stopping. Any senator wishing to speak in a debate before a vote is given the opportunity, so you cannot stop them from starting. The current record is 24 hours and 18 minutes. Rand Paul is just over 13 hours at this point. I believe he is closing in on the second place record of 14 hours and some odd minutes (verification needed).

The person doing the filibuster is allowed to let others ask him questions, giving him a break and something new to talk about. In this case Senators from both parties have taken the floor to ask questions and then rambled on for a long period, one even read tweets of support for Rand Paul, in order to give Senator Paul a rest.

The issue Rand Paul has is that President Obama has nominated John Brennan as head of the CIA. John Brennan supports the drone program and argued against preventing drone use against American citizens and against having any kind of judicial ruling before a drone is used against a US citizens, which means the president would have unilateral power to execute US citizens, even in the US, without the Constitutional guarantee of due process. Rand Paul has attempted amending bills to make it an illegal practice and recently demanded an answer from the president and the Justice Department. The quote from Attorney General Eric Holder, posted by Sam48 on the 5th, was the response he got. Rand Paul said that unless he got the public guarantee from the administration that he would filibuster the nomination vote. And here we are.

Members of both parties want an answer from the president and were disappointed in Holder's, but none were willing to stick their necks out politically by stopping a nomination vote that was expected to pass without much problem. But now that Rand Paul has brought up the issue those same senators are helping him instead of trying to stop him. So far, to my knowledge, only one attempt to stop him has been made by Senator Harry Reid, who gave a sniveling comment about knowing if he can go home, while fumbling over the Senate rules that he obviously hadn't read before, and seemed to even have trouble reading verbatim.



I'm not sure why Rand Paul looks more rested than Reid at this point. This is five hours in.

 

[niky]

I hope he has the legs to go the full 24. Or can they adjourn without voting if the time runs out?

 

[FoolKiller]

I hope he has the legs to go the full 24. Or can they adjourn without voting if the time runs out?

Since I know of none that actually prevented a bill from being voted on eventually, I don't know how that plays out. Typically the strategy is designed to possibly change a few Senators' minds, but mainly to get public attention and garner public support that pressures the other senators to change their vote. Rand Paul has even said he won't stop the nomination, but intends to stand up for liberty and justice and make sure his voice is heard.

The pressure here is on Obama, not the Senate or the vote.

 

[niky]

Well.. best of luck. If can hold out for a few months while talking, they could always try to make it last till the next elections...

 

[FoolKiller]

It's over. He ended near the 13 hour mark.

But he achieved his goal, attention to the issue, including from The Daily Show.

 

[Crash]

I'm glad and proud that Rand Paul filibustered the nomination, add to that he did it the old school way of continuously speaking.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

As a teacher, I found this story to be rather interesting. I suspect we're only getting one side of it.

 

[arora]

Yet another reason to ban public education.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Reading the article, this part leapt out at me:

A Texas high school student has filed a federal lawsuit against her school after her Spanish teacher allegedly gave her a failing grade for refusing to recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance.

[...]

The complaint also states that the student was not allowed to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish in front of the class as an alternative assignment. The teacher, Reyna Santos, gave her a different assignment on the Independence of Mexico to which she received 13 out of 100 points.

Now, without seeing the assignment in question, I can only speculate as to what the students were actually asked to do. But from the sounds of things, this was a civics class. I don't know what it's called in America, but down here it's known as Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE), and covers the social sciences - history, geography, etc.

This is what I suspect has happened: firstly, the girl refused to recite the Mexican pledge of alleigence, and the alternative assignment was on the Independence of Mexico. So they were probably studying Mexico, which is supported by the idea that reciting the American pledge of alleigence in Spanish would not meet the requirements of the assignment, since it has nothing to do with Mexico.

I very much doubt that the students were being forced into reciting the Mexican pledge of alleigence, as if their teacher was secretly recruiting an army of teenagers to Mexico. Rather, one of the key concepts that students in Year 9 should be familiar with is the idea of citizenship, and the position and role of their nation in a regional context. Again, I'm going by the Australian curriculum here, and I'm making a huge assumption, but I have to go off what I know, and that's what I'm seeing here. If I were setting this assignment, I'd probably be asking students to look at the American and Mexican pledges of alleigence, paying particular attention to the values each pledge displays, and how those values could go about shaping a national or cultural identity. This would naturally require students to be familiar with the Mexican pledge of alleigence, and some of them may choose to recite it, particularly if there was an oral component to the assignment (and there may well have been, since modern teaching theories are designed to take into account a variety of learning styles).

If someone can direct me to the syllabus used by the school, I can probably give a much clearer idea of what might have been expected in the assignment.

 

[arora]

First off you need to find a sense of humor lol.

Now then, it could have been a civics class on Mexico but I doubt it, either way reciting the Mexican pledge is no big deal to me one way or the other. I don't see any reason a child should be forced to learn it though, being I don't know, a U.S. citizen. Unless of course the class was an elective.

I'll stand by my point all the same, all this super equality reverse mojo voodoo equality hippy cumbia bs gets old. I've had more then enough of the U.S. public schrule system 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'll stand by my point all the same, all this super equality reverse mojo voodoo equality hippy cumbia bs gets old.

It has nothing to do with equality. Two of the key concepts that a student in Year 9 should learn - again, I'm talking about down here, but I'd be extremely surprised if it is not taught in America - are the ideas of citizenship and what it means to be a citizen, and the role and function of a nation in a wider regional context. An assignment specifically addressing Mexico would be specifically written to achieve these objectives.

 

[arora]

Exactly, we are not Mexican citizens yet it's perfectly fine to refuse reciting one pledge in favor of another?

plz

 

[nobuffalo]

I'd say "Spanish teacher" refers to a teacher teaching Spanish and not really to a civics class of any kind.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Exactly, we are not Mexican citizens yet it's perfectly fine to refuse reciting one pledge in favor of another?

plz

Ah, but did the assignment specifically require the student to recite the Mexican pledge of alleigance?

This story has been presented in such a way that it makes out as if the teacher demanded that every student stand up and recite the Mexican pledge of alleigence to get full marks in the assignment. I would be very surprised if that was the case. If I were the teacher setting this assignment, then I would be asking my students to refer to the Mexican pledge of alleigence in order to demonstrate their understanding of it. They would not be reciting it as if they were actually taking it, but rather, they would need to show their understanding of the values it promotes, and how these values shape a national identity - just as the American pledge of alleigence speciically promotes the values of liberty and justice.

This student is trying to make out that she was forced to declare her alleigence to the flag of Mexico, which she considered to be treasonous, and then claims that she was given a poor grade on her alternative assignment as punishment for refusing to declare it. And that's great for a newspaper headline. But if we could see the both the original and alternative assignments and the marking criteria that would be used to mark them, then I think the case would simply fall apart (provided that the assignments and marking criteria were prepared properly - and they'd have to be approved by the school first).

I'd say "Spanish teacher" refers to a teacher teaching Spanish and not really to a civics class of any kind.

Or it could be referring to the teacher's nationality. After all, her name is Reyna Santos, which is a Spanish name.

 

[nobuffalo]

Or it could be referring to the teacher's nationality. After all, her name is Reyna Santos, which is a Spanish name.

It certainly could.

 

[arora]

Ah, but did the assignment specifically require the student to recite the Mexican pledge of alleigance?

This story has been presented in such a way that it makes out as if the teacher demanded that every student stand up and recite the Mexican pledge of alleigence to get full marks in the assignment. I would be very surprised if that was the case.

I wouldn't, not in the least bit.

If I were the teacher setting this assignment, then I would be asking my students to refer to the Mexican pledge of alleigence in order to demonstrate their understanding of it. They would not be reciting it as if they were actually taking it, but rather, they would need to show their understanding of the values it promotes, and how these values shape a national identity - just as the American pledge of alleigence speciically promotes the values of liberty and justice.

But yet you find it perfectly o.k. for the same students to not be required the same about the pledge to their own country.

This student is trying to make out that she was forced to declare her alleigence to the flag of Mexico, which she considered to be treasonous, and then claims that she was given a poor grade on her alternative assignment as punishment for refusing to declare it. And that's great for a newspaper headline. But if we could see the both the original and alternative assignments and the marking criteria that would be used to mark them, then I think the case would simply fall apart (provided that the assignments and marking criteria were prepared properly - and they'd have to be approved by the school first).
.

I'm quite sure she was only required to recite the words with no convection, something she is not required to do regarding that other pledge...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But yet you find it perfectly o.k. for the same students to not be required the same about the pledge to their own country.

Because that wouldn't be a suitable assignment.

First of all, the Pledge of Alleigence is something that is taught to children at a very young age. They recite it every single day, so it is something that would have memorised in their very first year of schooling.

Secondly, the school in question is close to the Mexican border. Therefore, it stands to reason that there are a lot of Spanish-speaking students - legal or not - in the area. With this in mind, the Pledge of Alleigence is probably taught to them in Spanish so that they understand it from an early age.

Therefore, reciting the American Pledge of Alleigence in Spanish would not be a sutiable alternative assignment because it is something that a second-grade student would be expected to be able to do. This girl is in the ninth grade, and although Spanish is not her native language, she would undoubtedly have exposure to it. She could not reasonably expect to be allowed to recite the American Pledge of Alleigence in Spanish, and be marked on the same scale as students reciting the Mexican pledge.

 

[arora]

Secondly, the school in question is close to the Mexican border. Therefore, it stands to reason that there are a lot of Spanish-speaking students - legal or not - in the area. With this in mind, the Pledge of Alleigence is probably taught to them in Spanish so that they understand it from an early age.

Who cares where the school is located, other then in the UNITED STATES. If I lived in mathelvania would my knowledge of algebra be negated?

Therefore, reciting the American Pledge of Alleigence in Spanish would not be a sutiable alternative assignment because it is something that a second-grade student would be expected to be able to do. This girl is in the ninth grade, and although Spanish is not her native language, she would undoubtedly have exposure to it. She could not reasonably expect to be allowed to recite the American Pledge of Alleigence in Spanish, and be marked on the same scale as students reciting the Mexican pledge.

False, I know you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to border cultures in the U.S. but fortunately, I do

Besides all of that, you are conveniently missing the point the child's parents are making.

As far as marks go I'm sure there are any number of Spanish words organized in any fashion that would show she mastered whatever level of language comprehension(which I believe the class to be about), or even some sort of Mexican civic lesion.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make: that reciting the American Pledge of Alleigence in Spanish would not be an appropriate alternative assignment because it would not meet the outcomes a student is expected to achieve. And it would not meet those outcomes because it is not challenging enough.

It would be like me setting an assignment where you have to recite Lord's plan from the prologue of The Taming of the Shrew:

O monstrous beast! how like a swine he lies!
Grim death, how foul and loathsome is thine image!
Sirs, I will practise on this drunken man.
What think you, if he were convey'd to bed,
Wrapp'd in sweet clothes, rings put upon his fingers,
A most delicious banquet by his bed,
And brave attendants near him when he wakes,
Would not the beggar then forget himself?

And you said, "Sir, I can't/won't do that - could I recite Katerina's English assignment from Ten Things I Hate About You instead?" and then expecting to be marked on the same level as the students reciting Lord's plan.

As far as marks go I'm sure there are any number of Spanish words organized in any fashion that would show she mastered whatever level of language comprehension(which I believe the class to be about), or even some sort of Mexican civic lesion.

If that is the case, then why did the student specifically ask to recite the American Pledge of Alleigence as her alternative assignment?

 

[arora]

Judging ones knowledge on a subject is not predicated on where they learned it first off, I know it might hurt the teachers feelings to realize this.

If she specifically asked to recite the U.S. pledge in Spanish, then the point is not that she already knew it and wanted an easy grade, you are being silly for silly sake's surely lol.

I'm bet you can figure it out if you really try 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If she specifically asked to recite the U.S. pledge in Spanish, then the point is not that she already knew it and wanted an easy grade

No, the point is that reciting the American pledge in Spanish would not be as challenging as reciting the Mexican pledge in Spanish.

 

[arora]

omg how about reciting something that is NOT a pledge??????

So thick, I thought teachers where liberal and understanding and smart and such.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Because if it's related to citizenship, understanding the pledge of a nation maens understanding the values that nation is built on. And understanding those values shows us what it means to be a citizen. At the same, it is important to understand that there are other culture out there who value different things.

You're acting as if the teacher did the wrong thing in teaching her students what the people of another culture valued. What, then, is the alternative? To leave students with no understanding of other cultures, and instead recite your own values back to yourself over and over again? All I see in that is an insular, isolationist and ultra-conservative attitude that takes such pride in its own values that it interprets any exposure to any other way of thinking - even when that other way of thinking is remarkably similar to its own - as an attack on its own fundamental values.

How on earth can you reasonably expect American students to have any understanding of or appreciation for the world around them if you take away their exposure to it because exposing them to it might upset someone?