Voar Tok

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: El Burro If you can't get Euro cars, EPA won't regulate emissions and US car manufacturers continue to make gas guzzlers... its probably the best thing for the US to be introduced to a Hybrid generation... it'll certainly make more difference in the US than most other places around the world.quote> Exactly. It's the best option currently available. (and, if every American drove a hybrid car, we could change our Middle East policy. but let's not go there.)quote> I'll have to see if I can find it, but the US Dept of Energy released a report not terribly long ago that indicated that the hybrid car market was having less of an effect on cutting down gas usage than had been previously hoped for. Part of that makes sense, because not everyone will really be able to meet their needs with the average hybrid (and hybrid pickup trucks are proving to be more of a fantasy than a reality right now). Most of the industrial world wouldn't be able to either. As for Middle East policy, I'll discuss that with anyone who's interested in doing it privately. Don't want to start a flame war here.

Originally posted by: simwario I think this could be a protest against the very strict (from a european point of view) sexual laws in the US. Here in Germany the age of conscent is 14, so for example a 14 and 17 year old couple can legally have sex with each other, without the guy having fear to be charged. However it would be something different if the girl is 14 and the guy is 18 or older, then he could be thereotically charged of sexual abuse (for example if her parents have something against the relationship). The general age of consent where a girl/boy can legally have sex with anyone older than 18, is 16. The idea of this pregnancy pact is quite stupid though, none of these babies can only live of air and love.quote> In case you didn't notice, there are states in the US that do that too. To recite the example I gave, in Texas, the age of consent is 17, but anyone ages 14-16 can have sex with anyone else in that age range, and provided it was consensual, will not be charged with rape. Now if one of them is 17 and the other is 15, there could be legal problems there, but you have to draw the line at some point to prevent actual adults from preying on younger teenagers.

Ya know, huffing paint ain't much better than becoming a teenage parent. EDIT: Not to mention that the insinuation there is actually kind of insulting.

Originally posted by: PhilsCafe EDIT: I just realized from the introduction that none of them were above 16. This doesn't affect my 2nd statement though. Maybe SkiGeek is right though and the law is a little too strict. Why to criminalize nearly 50% of an age group? Some states allow 13-16 year-olds to have sex with up to a 3 yrs older person.quote> Well, I know a number of states do this, but I'll use Texas as an example since it's the one where I've actually looked up what the law says on it. Having sex with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape straight up. No ifs, ands, or buts. Age of consent is 17, which means that anyone 17 and over is technically committing statutory rape if their with someone who is less than 17. However, once you get to be 14, you can have sex with anyone at least your age and younger than 17, and so long as it is consensual, no crime has been committed. Now, for anyone who thinks that sounds really complicated, it's actually pretty sensible. It is impossible to keep teenagers from, to use Ski's wording, fooling around, and so long as it is consensual, it's overkill to be locking them up for it. Now, it's still kind of tricky when you have one teenager on one side of the consent line and the other one still not old enough yet. Originally posted by: Muck308 Women raping men will never become a bigger deal than vice versa as far as media attention is concerned. And let's be honest, in order for intercourse to ensue, the man has to be aroused. I wouldn't get aroused if someone was trying to rape me. Wow. That's just one of those sentences you never think you're going to have to use.quote> Most guys don't treat that as rape, which leads to one of the problems there. Something like that is usually looked upon as being a rite of passage.

Well, the one thing you have to understand is that, at least here in America, anyone under the age of consent is legally incapable of consenting to sex. Even if they planned it, promised the guy that he wouldn't get in trouble, etc. - if someone else found out, he could be hauled off to jail and there'd be very little he could do about it. That, and while the law is the same, in reality, it's much easier to convict a guy of rape than it is to convict a woman of rape even if guy or gal were obviously guilty.

Thought I'd post a more detailed story before I say anything else. Teen ‘pregnancy pact’ has 17 girls expecting Many moms-to-be at Mass. high school are aged under-16 MSNBC News Services updated 2:41 a.m. CT, Fri., June. 20, 2008 BOSTON - An investigation has been launched into an apparent teenage "pregnancy pact" that has at least 17 high-school girls expecting babies, four times more than last year, including many aged 16 or younger. A high school health clinic in the city of Gloucester, Mass., became suspicious after seeing a surge in girls seeking pregnancy tests. Local officials said Thursday nearly half of those who became pregnant appear to have entered into a pact to have their babies together over the year. "Some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," Gloucester High School principal Joseph Sullivan told Time magazine, which broke news of the pact on its Web site. Some of the girls reacted to the news they were pregnant with high fives and plans for baby showers, Sullivan said. One of the fathers "is a 24-year-old homeless guy," Sullivan told the magazine. Others were boys in the school. Statutory rape charges? Superintendent Christopher Farmer confirmed the deal to WBZ-TV, saying the girls had "an agreement to get pregnant." He said the mothers-to-be are generally "girls who lack self-esteem and have a lack of love in their life." Carolyn Kirk, mayor of the port city 30 miles northeast of Boston, said authorities are looking at whether to pursue statutory rape charges. "We're at the very early stages of wrestling with the complexities of this problem," she said. "But we also have to think about the boys. Some of these boys could have their lives changed. They could be in serious, serious trouble even if it was consensual because of their age — not from what the city could do but from what the girls' families could do," she told Reuters. Under Massachusetts law, it is a crime to have sex with anyone under the age of 16. The ‘Juno’-Jamie Lynn effect? "At the very least these men should be held responsible for financial support, if not put in jail for statutory rape as the mayor has suggested," Greg Verga, chairman of the Gloucester School Committee, told Reuters in a telephone interview. Nationwide, teen pregnancies are showing signs of rising after steadily declining from 1991 to 2005. This trend was highlighted Thursday when Britney Spears' 17-year-old sister Jamie Lynn, star of Nickelodeon's popular TV show "Zoey 101," gave birth to a baby girl, according to People magazine. "The data seem to be indicating that the declines that we had seen through the 1990s are coming to a close," said David Landry, a researcher at the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based nonprofit group focusing on reproductive issues. Birth rates for teenagers aged 15 to 17 rose by 3 percent in 2006, the first increase since 1991, according to preliminary data released in December by the National Center for Health Statistics. Landry cautioned against attributing the trend to Hollywood following the recent hit movie "Juno," in which a teenager gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, and "Knocked Up," a comedy about a one-night stand. "The trend emerged before those movies," he said. In Gloucester, the 1,200-student school administered 150 pregnancy tests to students in the past academic year. The school forbids the distribution of condoms and other contraception without parental consent — a rule that prompted the school's doctor and nurse to resign in protest in May. "But even if we had contraceptives, that pact shows that if they wanted to get pregnant, they will get pregnant. Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant," said Verga. quote> It's an interesting situation here. I think there are definitely going to be rape charges filed because of the fact that some of the guys involved are legal adults. The difficult part is what to do about legal charges between the the boys involved and the girls who were under sixteen. There's some sense to be had in filing charges on them too because, well, it is the law and that's technically what should happen. But then there's the other thing about whether some of the onus should lie on the girls because they were specifically trying to get pregnant. Ultimately, I don't think anything will happen to the girls because, from my understanding, they aren't legally capable of consenting. I don't know. Either way you slice it, it seems that the fault is split (not necessarily equally or even in some cases at all) between the boys and the girls. As for the people like that 24 year old homeless man - he should have known better and probably deserves whatever he gets.

Originally posted by: zelgadis Originally posted by: Voar Tok Originally posted by: Duke87 My theory? SUV's are for men with small *ahem*quote> Then what about the women that drive them? quote> Oddly enough, the majority of women I've witnessed who are SUV drivers are the waif-like, under 5 feet tall variety. I have no idea why...quote> I do. They have you seated higher up, so it's easier to see around the traffic. As for road-sensing capabilities, I can sense the road just fine in an SUV.quote> Perhaps good enough for you. But I've never met anyone who has driven both an SUV and a low-to-the ground sports car who said that the difference in road feel is even comparable. It's a simple matter of physics, since the "feel" has to travel a lot more distance to reach you in an SUV than a sports car.quote> It's a matter of physics, yes, but not in that the sensation has to travel farther to get to you. Whether you get the sensation at all how much is more of an issue with the type of suspension that they put on the vehicle as well as the steering response time. The faster the steering response time, the better the road feel. The cushier the suspension system, the less likely you are to feel the road. It's why sports cars have road-tuned suspension and Cadillacs don't. The sports car driver wants to be able to feel the road. The Cadillac driver doesn't. Both of them can be set at the same height off the road, and there will still be a noticeable difference in the ability to sense the road beneath you. However, I can definitely say that I've never heard anything like that shopping cart thing before. quote> What can I say? I'm weird. Now, I have my own submission here. I don't get.... ... anime. I know someone who is always harping about how great anime is and what all the good shows are that I need to watch and can't seem to wrap their head around the concept that I really don't care for, or about, anime. I get the impression from this person that the big draw to anime is that it's cartoons with a plot. Well, if I wanted a plot, I'd watch a movie. When I watch cartoons, I want to see something I can laugh at like Family Guy. IMHO, putting the two of them together is like the cardinal sin of television.

Originally posted by: krbe The good people at Statoil have estimated that the mining the oil sand (the same as shale?) in Alberta would profitable at USD 40/barrel (estimates are a couple of years old, so let's say 50-60 for good measure). However, the method isn't pretty and certainly not easy on nature. It would however provide a boost with today's prices (which are more driven by fear than actual shortage). Let's for God's sake hope that Israel and Iran can shut up and mind their own business, while the Iraqis get back to work and the Americans can start drilling in their back yard soon: Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back Bush calls for end to ban on offshore oil drilling EDIT: If this goes through, oil shale production will be allowed too.quote> Just as an FYI, the oil sands in Alberta are not the same as the oil shale in the US. Sand is, well sand and the oil shales are a soft, rock-like compound.

Originally posted by: The_Dalai_Llama If it can be extracted cheaply and without doing much damage to the environment, sure.quote> I read an article about this thing in US News and World Report a couple of years ago and in it was a proposal from the people at Shell, who thus far have probably come up with what the industry has deemed as the most practical way to get it out with the least amount of cost and environmental damage. The plan needed a nuke plant to provide enough energy to freeze the surrounding ground for something like two years to provide a barrier against oil seepage into the surrounding water table and then heating the oil shale to make the extraction process easier. Originally posted by: beebs How much of that oil is recoverable, though. The Athabasca tar sands up here in Alberta hold an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, but only about 10% of that is actually economically recoverable.quote> Citing the same article, it mentioned that the people at Shell had calculated that the majority of it was economically recoverable once oil hit the $120 per barrel threshold (if I'm remembering the figure correctly). jammy: You wouldn't mine the stuff in the oil shale. Because of the nature of the oil shale, extraction would be through a process of heating the ground and pumping out the liquid.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Doesn't matter though. It's a risk that the student is willingly taking, whether they realize it or not. Another part of showing maturity is realizing that not everything is going to be explained and whether it is explained or not, you're still obligated to follow it. Is that fair? No, but it is reality.quote> If they do not know the rules, how can they be expected to be obligated to follow them? The people that run the installation need to tell the rules to the students before they are punished for not following them unknowingly.quote> First off, even since Hammurabi, ignorance of the law has not been considered a valid excuse. Second, most (if not every) schools publish student handbooks. Odds are good that the rules and regs are in there, and not reading them doesn't cut it. Also, on the cell phone usage argument, I think they need to get a definition of usage before they go suspending students for it.quote> Also, one needs to get used to the reality that what we want to happen and what happens are usually two different things. They don't to define usage. It's defined for them in the dictionary. The dictionary defines usage as the act of using, and so much as even checking the time on one is using it. All of you here have two things in common. One, you all paid a lot of money for this class. Two, you are all, presumably, here to learn. This is a required, core course, so I am not so naive as to think that you're all here because you want to be. But, there are people here who are genuinely interested in this course. Now, for those of you who are only in this course because you have to be, let me point out a few rules that'll make this semester go by much easier. All cell phones, pagers, and any other noise makers you have must be off. Do not talk to the people next to you. If you want to talk with your classmates, go outside. I don't require attendance and you are free to come back when you can be quiet again. But, you will be quiet when you are in here. Why? Because when you're talking to someone, you're creating a distraction, and I don't know who in here is genuinely interested in the class, or where they're sitting, but I'll be damned if I let you ruin it for them. And if you cannot be quiet and won't leave, I will have campus police remove you from the room. As I said a few minutes ago, order will be preserved at all costs.quote> Well, the professor explained it to them and the students clearly know the regulations. While I might tone down the "all costs", I think it was a clear, explicit speech. Why can't the public schools be as clear as that with their own rules?quote> The thing is, he wasn't obligated to say that. He felt the need and did. Public school teachers aren't obligated to say that either. By the time someone gets to high school, there should be an ingrained understanding that there are certain things that don't need to be preached about, like disrupting a class or cheating on an exam. Again, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. CIVIL RIGHTS: Your rights as defined according to state and national law. These are rights that can be given and can be taken away as the law sees fit. Stuff like the right to smoke would be included under this right. CIVIL LIBERTIES: "Rights" that are protected by the law, such as the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, private property, etc. The right to the contents of your locker would be protected under this as the right to private property. However, you have private property on the property of the school, and I have a feeling that somewhere in the paperwork that goes with being a student at the school is a submission to locker checks. The school has the right to inspect the lockers to see what is in them, and whether your private property is protected by the 14th Amendment is up for the courts to decide. So far, they have decided that it isn't protected. quote> First of all, I did not sign any papers, agreements, or contracts when I was in school.quote> Because minors are not capable of signing legally binding contracts. Whether you wish to consent or not, the law won't view a minor's signature as legally-binding. Second, I for one will not have my property rights to be thrown at the mercy of a court. I know that: 1. It is illegal to steal another person's property. 2. I do not have to submit to unwarranted searches of my personal property. I did not possess anything illegal in my locker, and the school had no reasoning to conclude that I did.quote> Umm.... if an adult's rights are at the mercy of the court, why are your's any different? Whether the school had reasoning to suspect you of having something in your locker isn't something you'd know. They wouldn't tell you if they thought they had reason. Also - it's school property - the 4th Amendment doesn't prevent them from searching through anything on their own property. You don't own the locker. Thirdly, I do not really care what the courts think. I won't accept clearly illegal searches to be subjected to an arbitrary decision by a select, executively appointed group of individuals. They can have their opinions, and I can have mine.quote> You can have your opinions, and they can have theirs, but ultimately, the law doesn't care what anyone's opinions are. You either submit to the law or face the consequences. Or get it changed, which a minor is pretty much incapable of doing unless they can convince an adult to do it. Social contract. You are, therefore you agree. Secondly, as long as you're under 18 or whatever the limit is in the jurisdiction you're under, you probably lack the ability to agree.quote> I can understand a contract, and I can write. Therefore I can agree to it. Also, I take that as a degrading comment.quote> It wasn't meant as a degrading comment. It was a statement of reality. Minors, in most, if not all, situations, are not legally capable of signing a binding contract. Lastly, this thread was not created for mindless opinion bashing. Read the topic summary.quote> This isn't "mindless opinion bashing." These are legitimate opinions based on personal beliefs, observations, or the law (or whatever else). They don't agree what you have been posting, but they're just as legitimate.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus This is merely arguing over semantics. If you're pulling out your cell phone to check the time, this is still usage of your cell phone. If your cell phone falls out of your pocket in the middle of class, this isn't usage of your cell phone, but it is an unnecessary disruption of class, something that any student should be able to know is against the rules.quote> ISo, along that line of thought, a person would be punished for dropping a pencil or calculator! The phone was probably not dropped intentionally, and it makes no sense to punish a student for that.quote> They could if the teacher saw fit to do so. However, that is unlikely because, presumably, the pencil or calculator is needed for the class and the average teacher understands that people can be clumsy at times. Cell phones are not needed for class, and the problem could have been easily solved by leaving the cell phone in the locker or at home. Will any student do this? No, most likely not. Doesn't matter though. It's a risk that the student is willingly taking, whether they realize it or not. Another part of showing maturity is realizing that not everything is going to be explained and whether it is explained or not, you're still obligated to follow it. Is that fair? No, but it is reality. Also, it is not a matter of semantics. The wording greatly affects the effect of the regulation.quote> It is a matter of semantics because the issue isn't about whether cell phones are allowed on the school grounds, but what defines usage, and since they haven't clearly defined usage, one can easily make a case that any usage at all is forbidden, even for something so innocent and menial as checking the time. The 14th Amendment applies to civil rights and liberties as well as the right to have the law applied equally and fairly to everyone. Cell phone usage and other stuff that falls under the category of rules and regulations in environments like schools are not covered under this.quote> I said, cell phone usage is not covered by 14th Amendment, but it is a matter of the principle of it, that people ought to be treated equally. I see you agree that rights are covered by the 14th, which it says rather explicitly.quote> CIVIL RIGHTS: Your rights as defined according to state and national law. These are rights that can be given and can be taken away as the law sees fit. Stuff like the right to smoke would be included under this right. CIVIL LIBERTIES: "Rights" that are protected by the law, such as the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, private property, etc. The right to the contents of your locker would be protected under this as the right to private property. However, you have private property on the property of the school, and I have a feeling that somewhere in the paperwork that goes with being a student at the school is a submission to locker checks. The school has the right to inspect the lockers to see what is in them, and whether your private property is protected by the 14th Amendment is up for the courts to decide. So far, they have decided that it isn't protected. It'd be kind of hard to make a case for reading a person's journal unless you thought they were plotting something in there, but searching through their stuff isn't really protected. It's school property, and if you don't want your stuff being rummaged through, I don't think it's obligated that you bring it to school with you.quote> Just because you put your property in a school locker does not mean it belongs to the school. That is simply ludicrous. Isn't the stuff in your locker your property? I don't see the reasoning behind this statement.quote> No, it doesn't belong to the school, but because it is on school property, they have the right to search it if they feel they have need to. And a government institution's rights are going to supersede an individual's rights unless there is a violation of the law, which so far, a precedent for locker check violating the law has never been established. If you haven't noticed it already, one thing you'll find soon enough is that failure to do the work, and subsequently fail the class, is not enough incentive for some students.quote> Well, then let them fail if they want to.quote> This is the attitude that illustrates why it is that the teachers have the authority to impose absolute quiet on a class room and take action against two students talking. I could explain it myself, but I'd prefer to paraphrase a professor I had who put it much better. All of you here have two things in common. One, you all paid a lot of money for this class. Two, you are all, presumably, here to learn. This is a required, core course, so I am not so naive as to think that you're all here because you want to be. But, there are people here who are genuinely interested in this course. Now, for those of you who are only in this course because you have to be, let me point out a few rules that'll make this semester go by much easier. All cell phones, pagers, and any other noise makers you have must be off. Do not talk to the people next to you. If you want to talk with your classmates, go outside. I don't require attendance and you are free to come back when you can be quiet again. But, you will be quiet when you are in here. Why? Because when you're talking to someone, you're creating a distraction, and I don't know who in here is genuinely interested in the class, or where they're sitting, but I'll be damned if I let you ruin it for them. And if you cannot be quiet and won't leave, I will have campus police remove you from the room. As I said a few minutes ago, order will be preserved at all costs.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Well, it has been said before, but cell phones are something that so much as even taking it out of your pocket can get you in trouble. At the place I work at, people have been threatened to be fired for taking their cell phone out of their pocket and checking the time when they were on break. You're not even supposed to have the thing on your person when you enter the work site. You're supposed to either leave it in your car or at your house.quote> If they have a rule that says "no cell phones on you at the work site" or something of that nature, that's entirely their own business. It is the hypocritical school that states "no usage of cell phones during school hours" that is the problem. If they said "no cell phones in school", then people would not be complaining as much about suspensions because they knew the rule about it.quote> This is merely arguing over semantics. If you're pulling out your cell phone to check the time, this is still usage of your cell phone. If your cell phone falls out of your pocket in the middle of class, this isn't usage of your cell phone, but it is an unnecessary disruption of class, something that any student should be able to know is against the rules. And if you think high school is draconian for not letting you even take it out of your pocket, consider what happens when you get to college. In most universities, professors have the right to permanently confiscate anything that interrupts their class. I had one professor who said that if your phone went off and he caught you, he would take your phone and you'd have to negotiate for its return when class was out. I had another professor that if your phone went off, you lied about it, and he caught you, he would automatically fail you for the class.quote> Well, I don't think it's draconian. They just need to read their own regulations. About the colleges: 1) In my view, no one has the right to steal another's property. That includes school staff.quote> This is your view, but it isn't the view of a lot of universities. A person would be hard-pressed to find a university that doesn't do this, and odds are very good that if a professor confiscates a student's cell phone for disrupting class, odds are very good that whoever the student appeals to will turn a deaf ear to them. 2) He can fail you for the class. That is not illegal to my knowledge. However, in my opinion, it is a little too much. Then again, if he said he'd fail you for it beforehand....quote> Most professors will tell you this, but odds are good that they aren't obligated to. What many of them will do is either put it in their syllabus, thereby getting it out there without having to repeat themselves, or use the fact that the student handbook will most likely say that professors can confiscate anything disrupting their class. Students are usually expected to know the handbook inside and out, and even though that's not possible, it's still required anyway. And FYI, that is taking the 14th Amendment completely out of context. That is referring to the civil rights and liberties that a person has. Teenagers aren't going to have all of those rights until they hit 18, and what's more, it doesn't include modern conveniences.quote> So, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to anyone under 18? I don't see that in the text of it. However, that's treading into youth rights, a topic this thread wasn't created for.quote> The 14th Amendment applies to civil rights and liberties as well as the right to have the law applied equally and fairly to everyone. Cell phone usage and other stuff that falls under the category of rules and regulations in environments like schools are not covered under this. Also, I did not equate cell phone usage rules with the 14th. I cited it as a principle of American laws and rights as a reminder that certain classes of people are not above the law.quote> Again, stuff like a cell phone usage policy is not a matter of the law, therefore it isn't protected by the 14th Amendment. School policies are not a matter of law unless they are regulated by law or are in violation of the law. Another example of this is dress code. I remember hearing years ago of a school that instituted a mandatory dress code of a white t-shirt and blue jeans (this was not long after Columbine and they said it made it easy to pick out anyone who didn't actually go to school there). Teachers were exempt from this dress code requirement. Is that unfair? Maybe, depending on your take on the issue. Is it a matter that is of concern under the 14th Amendment? Definitely not. On an additional noted about the lockers, I understand that it does seem like it's an invasion of privacy, but they are still school property and the school can check anything they want, when they want. If you think that is bad, consider another example from the place I work at. Everyone has a tool box, and everyone has a personal lock that they supplied for it. While the company won't cut the lock off, and can't get in without the worker opening the box himself, refusal to open the tool box for inspection will result in being automatically fired. At least at school you don't have to worry about being automatically sent to prison or anything. In the working world, it gets much less forgiving.quote> Work sites can keep their own rules, since they own the site, and you can leave if you wish. But compulsory schooling is different. It is also a governmental installation. As I previously stated, they can search their property, but not the student's property, such as the inside of a journal. Also, if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that drugs or guns are in the student's property, they need to bring the student to the locker to testify about it and launch an investigation into the matter.quote> Allow me to explain the easy out for this. Is school attendance mandatory? Yes. Is usage of the school lockers mandatory? Most likely not. Therefore, by simply using the locker, it could be easily argued that you are giving consent to have your locker and all its contents searched at any time. In America, the 4th Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Applied to lockers, school officials cannot search it for guns, drugs, etc. without good reason to do so. Reading a person's journal or rummaging around in their work folders, etc. is not protected by this reasoning.quote> It'd be kind of hard to make a case for reading a person's journal unless you thought they were plotting something in there, but searching through their stuff isn't really protected. It's school property, and if you don't want your stuff being rummaged through, I don't think it's obligated that you bring it to school with you. Yes, it is, but in circumstances like that, only when it pertains to the topic at hand. It inevitably will not stay on the topic of hand, and since the teacher can't monitor it all, it makes sense to ban it all.Yes, it is, but in circumstances like that, only when it pertains to the topic at hand. It inevitably will not stay on the topic of hand, and since the teacher can't monitor it all, it makes sense to ban it all.quote> I have seen in some instances teachers do listen to the talk, and off-topic discussion is kept to a minimum. Also, in some cases students regulate themselves. I've seen the more intelligent students keep off-topic talk down by staying on topic. Also, if they talk and don't work at all, they'll fail the work, so there's plenty of incentive to stay on topic.quote> If you haven't noticed it already, one thing you'll find soon enough is that failure to do the work, and subsequently fail the class, is not enough incentive for some students. Lastly, that is the same line of thought that goes into zero-tolerance policies, and sometimes things get overblown and rediculous. Such as a father leaving a kitchen knife in his truck for example. Or after hours when some guns are in a car in preparation for a hunting trip. In my opinion, situations such as this do not warrant a year-long expulsion. However, carrying a gun in school with the intent to kill people does warrant expulsion.quote> Personally, zero-tolerance policies are the biggest piles of crap ever invented for the school system. They don't actually make the school safer because the people who would go to school with the intent to harm someone aren't going to be caring what some stupid zero-tolerance policy says. Granted, there are things that shouldn't be tolerated, but not all of it warrants sending a kid off to correctional facilities. Now, the significant problem what you said runs into here is that if you have a gun in the back of a car, whose to say that there wasn't intent to kill people? I mean, you have a gun right there, which is evidence of more intent than the majority of kids who show up each day.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus cheese91: The rule about usage is not a silly rule, but it is the implementation is INSANE. Cell phone 'usage' means using it; like calling someone, checking messages, texting, etc.Taking it out is NOT using it. They need to get their use of the term "usage" straight (i.e. look it up in a dictionary). Also, if teachers can use their phones during class, then students should also. It is a government facility, and in the US, the 14th amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."quote> Well, it has been said before, but cell phones are something that so much as even taking it out of your pocket can get you in trouble. At the place I work at, people have been threatened to be fired for taking their cell phone out of their pocket and checking the time when they were on break. You're not even supposed to have the thing on your person when you enter the work site. You're supposed to either leave it in your car or at your house. And if you think high school is draconian for not letting you even take it out of your pocket, consider what happens when you get to college. In most universities, professors have the right to permanently confiscate anything that interrupts their class. I had one professor who said that if your phone went off and he caught you, he would take your phone and you'd have to negotiate for its return when class was out. I had another professor that if your phone went off, you lied about it, and he caught you, he would automatically fail you for the class. And FYI, that is taking the 14th Amendment completely out of context. That is referring to the civil rights and liberties that a person has. Teenagers aren't going to have all of those rights until they hit 18, and what's more, it doesn't include modern conveniences. To go back to the example of the place I work at, I'm probably the only guy in the shop that is allowed to get around the no cell phone rule. Why? I've demonstrated to the boss that I'm capable of being trusted with the thing and not using it when I'm supposed to be working. (See below for more about that idea). Secondly, I actually use it for work purposes. Well, anyone can say that teens are not adults because:1) They look different. 2) They are biologically different. 3) They may have less experience. The only reason they have less experience is because they have not lived as long as most adults have. And that is something they cannot control -- how long they've lived.quote> That is still a VERY important fact, and even though it is outside of the teenager's control, part of growing up and maturing is accepting the fact that life isn't always fair and you can't do anything about it every time. One of the easiest ways to prove to an adult that you're maturing is to accept the fact that you have less experience because you haven't lived as long, and then make a point of seeking out that experience. A good number of adults are willing to share advice and other tips that they've learned over the years with teenagers if the teenager shows interest. Over time, if someone keeps with it, a couple of things will happen. First, the teenager will most likely begin to develop a reputation with the adults that the teenager regularly comes in contact with as being wise beyond their years. Believe it or not, this actually goes a long way towards getting adults to consider you being mature. On an additional noted about the lockers, I understand that it does seem like it's an invasion of privacy, but they are still school property and the school can check anything they want, when they want. If you think that is bad, consider another example from the place I work at. Everyone has a tool box, and everyone has a personal lock that they supplied for it. While the company won't cut the lock off, and can't get in without the worker opening the box himself, refusal to open the tool box for inspection will result in being automatically fired. At least at school you don't have to worry about being automatically sent to prison or anything. In the working world, it gets much less forgiving. A lot of kids complain because they are not allowed to talk in lesson, I genuinely cannot understand peoples gripe with the rule! Most that I've seen complain of teachers who demand that they remain absolutely silent during work. I've heard far fewer complaints of teachers who allow you to whisper if you need to. Besides, isn't a little discussion healthy for any group of people? Yes, it is, but in circumstances like that, only when it pertains to the topic at hand. It inevitably will not stay on the topic of hand, and since the teacher can't monitor it all, it makes sense to ban it all.

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes Oh Just thought of something Do Universitys get input into school policys from the students?quote> Depends on what the policy is. If it's in regards to academic stuff, then no, they aren't going to be asking for student input on if the policy is a good idea or not - usually, anyway. They have rules that are supposed to be followed and when those rules are broken you can be expelled or suspened.Think any university would allow the students to vote weather or not drinking is allowed in dorms?quote> Yes, actually, I do think universities would allow students to vote on stuff like that. I know for a fact that there are universities out there that do, in fact, allow students to vote on issues like that and other ones as equally outrageous or even more so. Now, I'll cite examples from my university - a state university - which could be said to be a little more lax in their standards. But before I do that, I'll cite an example from an Ivy League school whose students did something considerably more outrageous than that. Behold, the Princeton Nude Olympics. Nude Olympics - annual (nude and partially nude) frolic in Holder Courtyard during the first snow of the winter. Started in the early 1970s, the Nude Olympics went co-ed in 1979 and gained much notoriety with the American press. For safety reasons, the administration banned the Olympics in 2000.quote> It's not being done anymore, but the fact that it ran for close to twenty something years meant that the administration didn't really object to it. And most people would be more shocked by that than a bunch of freshman getting wasted in a dorm room. Now, at the university I attend. There are academic policies on students, and there are the student life policies, and both of them should be looked at. In the realm of academic policies, they don't usually ask the students what they think about them. I can guarantee you that no students are ever going to be on the boards that decide what determines academic dishonesty. However, when a student is brought before an academic dishonesty trial, it is a violation of that student's rights if the five member "jury" doesn't have two students on it. These are the people that will determine if the student is innocent or guilty, and if guilty, what the punishment will be - and it's against the rights of the student on trial if there are not two other students on there. Now, about stuff like student life policies. We have a student government association, and the good people at SGA are habitually working to improve student's rights. Not terribly long ago, the university's board of regents tried to raise the tuition rates, and the people in SGA raised such holy hell about it that the regents backed off. On the issue of drinking, my campus is a dry campus, meaning that you can't just walk around outside with an open beer in your hand. But no one had to ask for the right to drink in the dorms - they just gave it to the students. Despite the fact that the university is a dry campus, you can organize a student event, get university land to do it on, and serve alcohol if you want to, and campus police can't touch you over it. There are some regulations on how you have to do it in order to keep campus police off, but it's really easy and straightforward. (Tell them that you want to serve alcohol and provide a non-alcoholic drink other than water - you could serve beer and tea and you'd be fine). In fact, the housing dept built an apartment complex for all the frats and sororities to have their houses at, and they specifically made it off-campus so that they wouldn't have to worry about dealing with the majority of university policies on alcohol. We have a policy board on campus that deals solely with the food services on campus, and since Aramark is responsible for that, they basically communicate with Aramark on behalf of the university's students. I know a few of the students on that committee, and there are two things that I'd like to point out about it. First off, there are more students on that committee than university staff, and secondly, the students on that committee have managed to do what the staff couldn't - get Aramark by the ear and have them on beck and call. (Aramark has a very lucrative deal with the university and they'll lose it if the people on this food services committee aren't happy - and lately, they haven't been happy). And another example - I was recently selected to serve on the main committee involving the facilities primarily used for all student life functions. There are more students on this committee than staff, the chairman of the board is a student, the people who do all of the grunt work of the committee are university staff and not students, and on top of all of that, the vote of the director of student life facilities doesn't count for anything more than mine, and I'm brand new to the committee while he's been on it for years now. And this whole idea of putting more power into the hands of the students is just in its infancy. Hell, a few months ago, we had a bunch of students who were protesting some policy of the university go and put a coffin in front of the door to the president's office, blockading it so that no one could enter or leave until it was removed. When the university president was asked what she wanted to do about the students disrupting her office, she was reported to have turned to her aide, looked at them and said "do about this? this is a university. this stuff is supposed to happen." Not terribly long ago, she held a town hall meeting just to get feed back from the students on what policies and programs they thought the university should start doing or go back and look at revising. So, my point of all of this - universities - good universities - actually care about what their students think. High schools for sure, and probably middle schools, should at least ask what their students think about things before going and blindly marching into them. It doesn't mean that they have to act on it, but at the very least, it's the considerate thing to do.

Originally posted by: SWAT-MEDIC Interesting... SkiGeek said dude! quote> Yeah, and having Ski say "dude" to you is something you'd rather avoid.

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus 4. Any issue of policy in the school that affects the students must first be approved by the students by a vote. - Patricius Maximus quote> So we base school policys on what 6-15 year olds think? quote> Well, in a sense, this should be done anyway. Whatever happened to the idea of the courtesy of at least seeking the input of the people affected by it? I'm not saying school officials would actually have to be bound by the decisions of the student body, but they could at least show that they care by asking the students what they think about it. Most schools don't do this, and I'd wager most students don't consider this even remotely fair. And, tbh, it isn't - it's another example of the Baby Boomer generation reverting back to the things they swore they'd never do that their parents did. This would be the general idea that children should be seen and not heard, or otherwise known as "when we want your opinion, we'll give it to you" mentality.

Originally posted by: Duke87 My theory? SUV's are for men with small *ahem*quote> Then what about the women that drive them? As for road-sensing capabilities, I can sense the road just fine in an SUV. And yes, I'm in very much in tune with what you're talking about, zel. I've been known to go through about six or seven shopping baskets till I found one I liked for it's ability to feel the floor through it.

Originally posted by: hailman Sometimes certain rules seem unfair, but later, when you're an adult, you learn to appreciate what the rules taught you--or, perhaps if you still feel the rules were unjust, as a parent, you can actually do something about it to change things for your own children, since you've earned the rights and responsibilities of an adult.quote> Thank you for being able to see this. My aunt was a school teacher, and she was among the masses that blindly looked at the rules and mindlessly uttered the "it's for your own good" reasoning even when it was becoming increasingly obvious some of the stuff they had for rules was completely pointless.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus My opinion on school rights is, in short, this: 1. School attendance needs to be de-compulsorized.quote> Much as a lot of students would like this, it isn't a good idea. We'd become the laughing stock of the world because the vast majority of students wouldn't go to school unless their parents forced them too. 2. Students and teachers must be equal under the law, in issues like attendance requirements, etc.quote> I concur. If it's acceptable for a teacher to miss class x number of days a year, it should be acceptable for the students to do the same. Students have lives too. 3. Attendance requirements for primary and secondary schools need to be equal, at 85% of the year.quote> Why 85%? Why not 70% or 90% or something else? 4. Any issue of policy in the school that affects the students must first be approved by the students by a vote.quote> As great as that sounds, it won't work. There are certain things that you can't really give to the students to take a vote on, because if they vote on it, they'll most certainly shoot it down, and it's not something that they should be able to shoot down - like the academic honesty standards. 5. All constitutional rights apply to school children as well as adults, including free speech and press.quote> Agreed. 6. Abolish corporal punishment, and if it happens prosecute it as assault.quote> I thought they already made it illegal for a teacher to hit a student.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 well, what kind of beverage? Soda so the seats become sugary and syrupy? you can't use water, that's too boring.quote> Forget that - I'm bringing the grape juice.

I know that "me too" posts are usually frowned upon around here, but I'd like to take a minute to say that I agree with the general sentiment expressed so far - Tim was one of the better, if not best, voices in political news. If there was one thing you could count on him doing, it was being as neutral as possible. Political news just went down a notch.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy The best she can expect from Obama is maybe Health and Human Servies Sec or Secretary of State...quote> Or Senate majority leader or supreme court judge. Both positions can wield more and lasting power than a President. Senate majority leader can make or break a President and a supreme court judge's decisions last longer in American history than most Presidents. I think she will be given a place on the Supreme Court once a place is made available. This helps the democrats make the court slightly more left-wing.quote> Obama can't make Hillary the Senate majority leader as the choosing of the officers in the Senate is entirely outside of his control. Usually, the way it works is that the either the most senior Senator of the majority party or the most influential is picked. Hillary is neither most senior senator or the most influential. He also can't make her a Supreme Court judge as he can only nominate her, which the Senate will have to approve, and Hillary is far too polarizing to be able to get a vote on the floor of the Senate, much less the two-thirds vote necessary to get through the advise and consent requirements for getting the position. On top of that, the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be either left-wing or right-wing. It's supposed to be impartial. Now, I'd be a fool to say that it actually works that way, but no one should actually be operating under the premise of trying to make the court lean one way or the other.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: Voar Tok Elizabeth may look at what just happened to Richard and be both angry and confused, but Elizabeth owes a lot of money on college loans, and regardless of the fact that she's being expected to work 70 hours worth of work in a single week, she'll keep doing it because she has to pay off the loans. quote> ah ha! But Elizabeth can't be expected to work 70 a week because of the work place cap.quote> But Elizabeth just saw what happened to Richard, and unless she's oblivious to the world around her, will quickly understand that the amount of work she's expected to do with take 70 hours, she's only got 40 hours to do it in, and she's going to have to find ways to get as much of it done in 40 hours anyway, or she'll be the next person out the door. And she can't afford to complain because she owes a bunch of people a bunch of money. The work week cap will cut down on the number of hours someone spends in the office, but it's going to greatly magnify the amount of stress put on them while they're there, thereby actually increasing the likelihood of burn-out and the toll that it'll take on the employee, both physically and mentally. Seriously, though, if your point is the employees are screwed no matter what the law says, I have to agree with you, but only to a certain point. There are some workplace laws that are very effective. Child labor laws, for instance. My grandfather went to work in the coal mines at age 11.quote> Yes, for the most part, at least primarily in the office world, an employee is screwed no matter what the law says. There's very little way to make it stick, and this is one of those things that would actually do more harm than good. And no, not all workplace laws are ineffective and pointless. You mentioned child labor laws. Others that come to mind are sexual harassment laws and workplace safety to name a few. Without them, we'd all still be working in places like the factories of the old 1800's where you could be told to work on something, have it cut your hand off because you didn't have the protective stuff you needed, and then be fired because you couldn't work. We've improved a lot since then. 1) You and I are coming from totally different perspectives on this. I'm the tired, old retiree with major burnout and you are the eager, young college student with boundless energy. Of course we are going to see things differently.quote> Well, here's another reason for not putting in the work week cap and allowing the employer and the employees some flexibility. It's not at all uncommon that as an employee nears retirement, they'll find someone who will eventually replace them, and this new hire will be considerably younger. Now, I could talk for hours on the benefits of doing this, but stepping aside from all of that, there's one benefit that applies to this situation. Let's say that Richard works for another company - one that treats him with more respect than Bob did. Richard is getting up there in years and can't handle long work weeks anymore like he could when he was younger. On top of that, we're going to give Richard the added benefit that he doesn't really need extra money - he and his family can live comfortably on his regular paycheck. Richard has enough work for two and a half people and the company hires Elizabeth to help him out. Without a work week cap, Richard and Elizabeth can sit down and develop a plan to help get the work done without killing both of them. Between the two of them, they have 100 hours worth of work to do, and Richard volunteers that he can pick up 45 hours per week, but nothing more. Elizabeth, with her young, eager spirit, says that she can pick up the remaining 55 hours and can start paying down her college loans. Richard is happy. Elizabeth is happy. Their boss is happy. It's a win-win-win situation. All made possible by the fact that they have some bargaining options at their disposal that they wouldn't have if there was a cap on how much they could work in a week. 2) Neither one of us is European. This thread started out being about an EU law and you and I have effectively hijacked the thread. Since the law will never apply to either one of us, how about we let the people who it does apply to have their say?quote> Well not that I originally set out on this, but I kind of figured that since it was about work week caps, a discussion about the overall effectiveness of them was a logical outcropping. But, point taken. I shall stop.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: Voar Tok Which is better - a work environment where there is overtime to be done and you get paid for it, or a work environment where there is overtime to be done, and you won't get paid for it Originally posted by: SkiGeekThe definition of "management" can be very bizarre. A well known telephone company in this area defines computer programmers as management. It doesn't matter that the programmers have nothing resembling management authority; it doesn't matter that they do not make the salary that the real managers do. The programmers are considered to be management and are treated as such.quote> Originally posted by: Voar TokThis is an example of the kind of stuff that I said should be acted against, and while I can't tell you what the solution to this is, I know a work-week cap won't solve it.quote> Originally posted by: SkiGeekTell that to the person who is being required to work a 70 hour work week with no overtime.quote> quote>quote> OK, I will. The logical point of a work week cap is to protect the employees from douchebag employers. The problem is that if even I can find a hole in the thing - with no official management training - it's guaranteed that a douchebag employer, combined with a sleazy company lawyer, can find a whole lot more wiggle room in this than I've previously mentioned. Take, for example, your hypothetical worker who is forced to work 70 hours a week and isn't given overtime. This person is obviously working for an employer who really doesn't care about his employees at all - aka, our sample douchebag employer. Now, since this message editor doesn't allow for making flowcharts, this might get a bit complicated, but bear with me. Let's assume that the government passes a law capping the work week at 40 hours. Our employer, who we shall refer to as Bob, has employees working under him. One of these employees is working 70 hours a week and getting paid for forty hours. We'll call him Richard. Richard is already maxed out as is, and is rejoicing that Congress has passed a law saying that he can't be forced to work over 40 hours. Bob is upset because he'll have to come up with something new in response to this. Now, here's where it starts getting complicated. Bob can choose from the following response paths to figure out what he wants to do. PATH A: Tell Richard that he must now do XYZ in 40 hours PATH B: Hire someone to give Richard a hand. PATH C: Become a better person and cut back on Richard's work requirement, and get other people to do the rest of his work. Bob is not going to pick Path C. It's not even worth our time to explore that further. So, Bob really only has the option of Path A or Path B. Here are the next steps on these two paths. PATH A: Contact company lawyer and look for loopholes in the law. PATH B: Begin a job search for Richard's new helper. Now, let's flesh that out some more and where it'll go from there. PATH A: Bob and lawyer find loophole and realize that Bob can tell Richard to do 70 hours of work in 40 hours, completely circumvent the intent of the law, and then, if Richard doesn't perform, fire Richard for incompetence. PATH B: Hire and train Richard's new helper. Path A is where Bob will almost certainly want to go, but Path A will make Bob look like a douchebag if anyone catches on. It could even bring legal ramifications, although, at this point, the company lawyer - we'll call her Sally - reminds Bob that it's still at the point where it'll be pretty close to impossible to make anything stick if it went to court. So, Bob and Sally put their heads together and realize that they can merge both Path A and Path B together and get where they truly want to go. Armed with this legal advice, Bob sets out on a new, merged path. MERGED PATH: Bob finds and hires a helper for Richard and gives him to Richard to train. At this point, Richard is going to be thrilled that he finally got someone to help him out, and he'll actually be able to go back to forty hour weeks and spend time with his family. Richard dives right in and starts training his new helper, who we shall call Elizabeth. So, let's stop for a minute and refresh our memories on the cast is in this little demonstration (just in case anyone is getting confused). Bob - douchebag boss Sally - sleazy company lawyer Richard - the over-worked and under-paid office employee Elizabeth - Richard's new bright-eyed, fresh-out-of-college, twenty-something year old assistant Bob tells Richard to show Elizabeth the ropes, and Richard begins to show her what a day in the life is like. However, Richard, who is having enough trouble trying to do 70 hours worth of work as it is, will get less done now with having to train Elizabeth - and Bob knows this. Bob begins to wait until such point as Elizabeth is, in Bob's eyes, sufficiently trained. Bob asks Elizabeth how it's going, and gets the scoop that she has been sufficiently trained. In no time flat, Bob goes to Richard, shows Richard cases of where he's not getting the work done, fires Richard for incompetence, and gives the work to Elizabeth. Richard has just fallen for a pre-baited trap, which he can't prove because Sally has all the legal paperwork to keep Bob safe, and Bob got back to the actual end of Path A. PATH A: Replace Richard with someone younger, who they can avoid giving as many benefits to, and will be eager to have a job even if it does mean working late. Let's face it. Elizabeth may look at what just happened to Richard and be both angry and confused, but Elizabeth owes a lot of money on college loans, and regardless of the fact that she's being expected to work 70 hours worth of work in a single week, she'll keep doing it because she has to pay off the loans. Elizabeth can't afford to quit, Richard is out of a job, Bob got what he wanted, and the pinstripe suits in Washington are all patting themselves on the back for how they championed workers rights. Richard, like Bob, had three options at his disposal - none of them particularly great. OPTION A: Put up, shut up, and hope Bob has a heart attack or something, and someone more reasonable replaces him. OPTION B: Hope Bob comes to his senses and gets him some help. OPTION C: Try to find another job and quit this one. All of those options suck, but in all reality, there's very little the law can do to protect a person from an employer like Bob. In the industrial world, there's a lot they can do because there's a decent enough relationship between work injuries and poor working conditions (including stuff like being overworked even when the work environment is considered to be more than adequately safe). But, like you said, it's virtually impossible to prove this in an office, and until you can prove it, there's no effective law you can pass to stop employers from exerting exhausting work requirements on the workers. My apologies if I'm coming across as excessively argumentative, but the idea of a work week cap protecting an office employee from an overly demanding boss is nothing more than an elaborate delusion.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek In my day, they just towed the wrecked cars to the front of the school and left them there for a while. some of them were pretty gruesome.quote> They used to do something like this at the police station in town. After the holidays, right around the second week of January, they would have the most mangled car they could find sitting out in front with a sign up next to it with a picture of a skeleton holding some car keys and a message about not drinking and driving.