America - The Official Thread

[arora]

If it is agreed that no child is required to learn or speak the U.S. pledge in the public system, which it is, well then you just picked your poison.

seriously dude, it is not hard to understand, I can't see why you keep trolling this.

Oh right, I forget, we should learn about all other cultures, just not our own 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If it is agreed that no child is required to learn or speak the U.S. pledge in the public system, which it is

I never said that.

Oh right, I forget, we should learn about all other cultures, just not our own 👍

Then all you're going to do is reinforce the perception that Americans are insular, isolated and have no knowledge or understanding of the world outside. You'll be left behind by the rest of the world.

 

[arora]

I never said that.

No, I said that, because it is a true fact.

Then all you're going to do is reinforce the perception that Americans are insular, isolated and have no knowledge or understanding of the world outside. You'll be left behind by the rest of the world.

You could not be any more wrong in your perceptions, it's nice to see your colors of judgement shine though.

It's not surprising to me that you still are missing the entire point lol.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What, that the teacher did the wrong thing because a student didn't want to do her homework?

For all your talk of "the point", I'm surprised you haven't actually made one yet.

 

[BobK]

I have never heard the term "Spanish teacher" to mean anything other than "teacher of the Spanish language" and can't imagine the article cited meant it as anything else. Given that "teacher of the Spanish language" is the common meaning of the term, I'd think that if the teacher in question were not a teacher of Spanish but rather one of Spanish extraction then the article would have made an effort to point this out.

Although I don't know for sure either way, and I doubt anyone else in this thread knows for sure either, I'd suggest that Reyna Santos is much more likely to be of Mexican/Central American/South American/Caribbean extraction than Spanish. Another possibility is that she's of European, Asian and/or African extraction and has married someone whose surname is Santos.

Consequently I find the suggestion that this occurred in a civics class and not a Spanish class (excuse me, a class in which the Spanish language is being taught) to be ludicrous.

The teacher was wrong to require a pledge in any language to any country to be recited by students, period. I do not know the text of the Mexican pledge, but the US Pledge of Allegiance starts with the phrase "I pledge allegiance". I think it would have been a perfectly adequate compromise to change that to "I do not pledge..." or "I am not pledging..." except similarly modifying the relevant part of the Mexican pledge and of course doing it in Spanish.

 

[arora]

What, that the teacher did the wrong thing because a student didn't want to do her homework?

For all your talk of "the point", I'm surprised you haven't actually made one yet.

In the United States of America children in public school are not required to learn or recite the pledge of allegiance, if a teacher tries to force them the ACLU will be all over it like a fly on rice. It cannot reflect poorly on their grades either. Some how you think it's perfectly fine to require them to learn and recite one from another country?

You will always miss this point because you are hippy or something, what is good for the goose is good for the gander and if we teach proper U.S. civics(which we don't) the requirements would be the same and equal. BTW I've never heard of a high school civics class regarding another country and I have one child just finishing high school now and the older one a few years ago. I live close to the Mexican border and the schools are full of both legal and illegal Mexicans, no one here makes a fuss one way or the other.

The whole thing is a farce and not much worth the consideration. My original statement holds true, abolish public education as it's a big joke 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is a notion. Try Google, get an actual link with details and a statement from the school.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...r-refusing-to-recite-mexican-national-anthem/

It's a Spanish-language class. The school themselves say so.

Now, stop debating inane details and focus on the issue: Are cultural and civics lessons important for a language course, where it does not affect how the language is used? And should any student be allowed to refuse to recite the pledge of another country than the one they are a citizen of (quoting our own pledge is a separate debate)?

 

[Gazumagi]

In the United States of America children in public school are not required to learn or recite the pledge of allegiance, if a teacher tries to force them the ACLU will be all over it like a fly on rice. It cannot reflect poorly on their grades either. Some how you think it's perfectly fine to require them to learn and recite one from another country?

I took a latin class and had to memorize a latin prayer even though i'm atheist. Did I refuse because I suddenly didn't want to be transformed into a catholic by saying a bunch of words... no. It's a freaking homework assignment, it means absolutely nothing except as an evaluation of your ability to learn/think/what have you. If you think that learning/saying the pledge of allegiance (once, as a schoolwork assignment) for another country is treasonous, then you either need a better brain or a new perspective.

 

[arora]

I took a latin class and had to memorize a latin prayer even though i'm atheist. Did I refuse because I suddenly didn't want to be transformed into a catholic by saying a bunch of words... no. It's a freaking homework assignment, it means absolutely nothing except as an evaluation of your ability to learn/think/what have you. If you think that learning/saying the pledge of allegiance (once, as a schoolwork assignment) for another country is treasonous, then you either need a better brain or a new perspective.

Right, funny how you left this part of my post out.

The whole thing is a farce and not much worth the consideration. My original statement holds true, abolish public education as it's a big joke 👍

It's not something I would bother fighting the school system over, I had more legit reasons too numerous to mention(off topic as well). I can see why this girl's family is up in arms however, you know those Texans can be pretty damn patriotic and such.

Just so I am clear about all this, I think the public school system is so badly broken we should do away with it.

 

[Grand Prix]

Obviously an assignment like this is going to piss some people off, so why didn't she pick some other assignment for students to do? It's just a language class.

Funny enough, it reminds me of the time my Grade 12 English teacher tried to make us read the story of Cain and Abel. Public education is a bit of a joke when teachers like these think they can preach their own personal views to their students.

Perhaps what we need are instructors, not teachers.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Are cultural and civics lessons important for a language course, where it does not affect how the language is used?

There is an increasing degree of cross-over in some subject areas. Last year, I had a Year 12 English class doing a unit called "Distinctive Voices". We were looking at Bush's speech from the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, which the class quickly identified as being propaganda (in places). They were, however, uncertain as to why the propaganda was needed, and it occurred to me that they were just five years old on September 11. They had (almost) always lived in a world with terrorism and the War on Terror. Even though this was an English class, I had to give them a quick history lesson to explain the context of the speech.

You cannot simply teach a class in isolation. You stick to your subject, but you acknowledge when and where is crosses over with other areas.

And should any student be allowed to refuse to recite the pledge of another country than the one they are a citizen of (quoting our own pledge is a separate debate)?

I suppose it depends on their reasons why. In this case, it feels a lot like the student was trying to get out of doing her assignment.

 

[arora]

I suppose it depends on their reasons why. In this case, it feels a lot like the student was trying to get out of doing her assignment.

I wonder how her marks where in the class prior to this assignment, I'd bet doughnuts to dollars she had good ones. It is highly unlikely to raise a stink over such an easy task, memorize a few words in Spanish? Ok. It's funny to me also that the dialect most likely taught is European lol.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I took a latin class and had to memorize a latin prayer even though i'm atheist. Did I refuse because I suddenly didn't want to be transformed into a catholic by saying a bunch of words... no. It's a freaking homework assignment, it means absolutely nothing except as an evaluation of your ability to learn/think/what have you. If you think that learning/saying the pledge of allegiance (once, as a schoolwork assignment) for another country is treasonous, then you either need a better brain or a new perspective.

👍

It's not always what you learn, but how you approach learning it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I wonder how her marks where in the class prior to this assignment, I'd bet doughnuts to dollars she had good ones.

I'm not so sure. She got 13/100 in the second assignment, which means that she did it. If it was really such a big deal for her, why did she bother doing the alternative assignment at all? Wouldn't she just protest against it all the more?

No, I have a feeling that she didn't raise a fuss until she got the marks back. She is suggesting that her teacher is more interested in being Mexican than being American, and gave her a poor mark for not doing as she was asked the first time around. But the alternative assignment was specifically related to Mexico's independence, and so by completing the assignment properly, she would still be fulfilling her teacher's desire for her to learn about Mexico. Therefore, intentionally giving her a low mark as retaliation for refusing to do the original assignment doesn't really make much sense.

Something isn't right here. I suspect the student submitted her assignment, didn't like the mark she got, and when she challenged the result and the school did not accept it, she went to the media.

 

[arora]

Therefore, intentionally giving her a low mark as retaliation for refusing to do the original assignment doesn't really make much sense.

It would be hard for me to believe even the lamest of teachers would do that.

All this attention over one bad assignment grade in an elected public high school class? I'm not buying that either.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Most of the schools I have taught in use a system of mutual marking. Assignments that contribute towards a student's final grade first have to be approved by the school before being given. Then they get marked by the class's regular teacher, and double-checked by a teacher from the same faculty. Finally, a student can challenge their final mark at any time, in which case the assignment can be re-submitted and examined by the Head Teacher for that faculty (and the teacher in this case is apparently a first-year teacher, so she couldn't be Head Teacher). Furthermore, the entire faculty can review assignment results at any time, so if a student who is getting 93/100 in their assignments suddenly gets a 13/100, the system will note it.

In short, if this student got such a poor mark for an assignment that would otherwise have been marked highly, it would come to light fairly quickly.

 

[FoolKiller]

There is an increasing degree of cross-over in some subject areas. Last year, I had a Year 12 English class doing a unit called "Distinctive Voices". We were looking at Bush's speech from the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, which the class quickly identified as being propaganda (in places). They were, however, uncertain as to why the propaganda was needed, and it occurred to me that they were just five years old on September 11. They had (almost) always lived in a world with terrorism and the War on Terror. Even though this was an English class, I had to give them a quick history lesson to explain the context of the speech.

You cannot simply teach a class in isolation. You stick to your subject, but you acknowledge when and where is crosses over with other areas.

So how is the pledge and anthem of a single Hispanic country, out of many, important to a language course? I had to learn social interactions for my German class, because it was important to what words you used. How is this similar?

I'm not so sure. She got 13/100 in the second assignment, which means that she did it. If it was really such a big deal for her, why did she bother doing the alternative assignment at all? Wouldn't she just protest against it all the more?

No, I have a feeling that she didn't raise a fuss until she got the marks back. She is suggesting that her teacher is more interested in being Mexican than being American, and gave her a poor mark for not doing as she was asked the first time around. But the alternative assignment was specifically related to Mexico's independence, and so by completing the assignment properly, she would still be fulfilling her teacher's desire for her to learn about Mexico. Therefore, intentionally giving her a low mark as retaliation for refusing to do the original assignment doesn't really make much sense.

Something isn't right here. I suspect the student submitted her assignment, didn't like the mark she got, and when she challenged the result and the school did not accept it, she went to the media.

Your argument would stand up better if not this bit from the lawsuit.

Brenda was also given a failing grade on her report card, which was later corrected.

Why correcting grades pre-lawsuit if it was legitimate?

There is also a quote from a fellow teacher in defense of the student.

 

[Danoff]

Ignoring the particulars of the case for a moment. Let's consider the implications of requiring students to recite a pledge that they do not support.

The pledge of allegiance to a nation is supposed to be a meaningful activity. When you recite the pledge, you are making an oath of loyalty to the nation. It exists because it means something. It is not something merely to be recited in a classroom for a grade. So I completely understand a student's refusal to pledge allegiance to any nation of their choosing, in fact, I applaud the recognition of the meaning behind reciting an oath.

That being said, I also think that this student is attempting a complete cop-out. I don't know whether the motives were to avoid work, or parents that didn't like a teacher, or a student that felt the teacher had an agenda or what. But here is how you get around the problem I highlighted in the previous paragraph:

"The Mexican Pledge of allegiance is as follows: quote... I pledge allegiance...".

Done. Problem solved. Moral dilemma avoided. The above is what it looks like when a student actually wants to cooperate while maintaining integrity.

 

[Joel]

That's how I survived Catholic school, I wrote all my papers in that fashion, "Catholics believe that XYZ", "The Catholic faith states that...", "If I were Catholic I would...". Kept my teachers happy.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why correcting grades pre-lawsuit if it was legitimate?

You'd be surprised how often marks are changed for reasons other than the student actually deserving the mark. I've heard of parents threatening to sue schools because their children did not get a certain grade, as if the child was guaranteed that grade simply by enrolling in the school.

 

[FoolKiller]

You'd be surprised how often marks are changed for reasons other than the student actually deserving the mark. I've heard of parents threatening to sue schools because their children did not get a certain grade, as if the child was guaranteed that grade simply by enrolling in the school.

Sounds like a crappy school all-around then. Grade inflation is bad enough without that kind of nonsense.

I say this as a student that attended a school that had an above average failure rate in its final history requirement for graduation and created a remedial history class. Graduating next to kids who were given a second shot to correct their grade without any consequences was almost offensive.

There is a reason why my daughter is even doing preschool at a private school.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Wasn't sure where to put this. God thread? Here? Deals with US Currency specifically so thought this was the best place.

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/17021-atheists-seek-to-take-god-off-currency

 

[FoolKiller]

Wasn't sure where to put this. God thread? Here? Deals with US Currency specifically so thought this was the best place.

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/17021-atheists-seek-to-take-god-off-currency

I see no issue with it. The best argument to keep it there is either "tradition" or keep Christians happy.


EDIT:

In other news, sanity prevails in New York City.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?_r=0

A judge struck down New York’s limits on large sugary drinks on Monday, one day before they were to take effect, in a significant blow to one of the most ambitious and divisive initiatives of MayorMichael R. Bloomberg’s tenure.

In an unusually critical opinion, Justice Milton A. Tingling of State Supreme Court in Manhattan called the limits “arbitrary and capricious,” echoing the complaints of city business owners and consumers who had deemed the rules unworkable and unenforceable, with confusing loopholes and voluminous exemptions.

The decision comes at a sensitive time for Mr. Bloomberg, who is determined to burnish his legacy as he enters the final months of his career in City Hall, and his administration seemed caught off guard by the decision. Before the judge ruled, the mayor had called for the soda limits to be adopted by cities around the globe; he now faces the possibility that one of his most cherished endeavors will not come to fruition before he leaves office, if ever.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Sounds like a crappy school all-around then. Grade inflation is bad enough without that kind of nonsense.

Well, I can't say for sure in this case, since I don't know the school where the incident happened. But I wouldn't be surprised if the girl and/or her parents kicked up a stink about her getting 13/100. Given the circumstances in which she came to be given the new assignment in the first place, the family may have threatened legal action - or the school may have anticipated it - which prompted the change in grade.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, I can't say for sure in this case, since I don't know the school where the incident happened. But I wouldn't be surprised if the girl and/or her parents kicked up a stink about her getting 13/100. Given the circumstances in which she came to be given the new assignment in the first place, the family may have threatened legal action - or the school may have anticipated it - which prompted the change in grade.

You realize that you have now painted a picture that makes this school look pathetic either way, right? Either the girl has a legitimate complaint about her grade being a petty retaliation (which another teacher even commented on) or the school is more willing to be guilty of academic dishonesty out of fear.

Basically, the school has put itself in a position to fall under the stupid or liar question.

No matter what the court case finds, since the world will have long moved on, the school now has a record of this accusation, a teacher in their employee publicly making comments for the accuser, and changing a grade they are defending was fair. Whether the accusation has merit or not no longer matters. The school looks bad.

 

[Famine]

@BarackObama
FACT: Since 1968, more Americans have died from gun violence than in all of America's wars—combined. #WeDemandAVote, pic.twitter.com/brMESYQqSu

Of course had the USA actually declared war since 1942, the stats would be a bit different.

Fun to see he's using dead Americans with guns he (and others) have sent to defend rights around the world as an argument against living Americans to defend their rights with guns at home.

No, not fun. The other thing. Despicable.

 

[Danoff]

It's also very difficult to come up with a solid number for the number of American lives saved by guns. But it is more than 1.3 milllion since 1968, a lot more. The estimate I have seen is 2.5 million times per year a gun is used in self-defense. Obviously not all of those would result in deaths, but one can imagine that it doesn't take 50 years to add up to 1.3 million lives saved.

To bolster that:

Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).

 

[FoolKiller]

So his number doesn't account for indiscriminate double-tap drone strikes in allied nations?

I'd like to hijack the #WeDemandAVote trend with innocents targeted in Obama unmanned attacks statistics.

Something like: In Newtown, CT a gunman killed 20 children. In al-Majala, Yemen an Obama-ordered cruise missile killed 21 children. #WeDemandAVote

 

[Crash]

Of course, since those kids, or those that die in drone strikes weren't Americans, their lives don't matter. Oh, those two Americans who died in drone strikes? Their lives don't matter either. You didn't get the memo? [/sarcasm]

I wonder what the number would be if they counted the innocent civilian dead in wars killed by direct US action. Also, I wonder if they counted numbers from the Civil War?

 

[FoolKiller]

There's a reason they only count after 1968 in their statistics. War is vaguely defined after that.