Gdanning
11mo ago
demanding evidence for things where no one has a way to collect it makes no sense.
Yes, it does, because we are talking about policy, not about personal experience. That was OP's claim: it was about what policy schools should enact. I am saying that, if a state entity is to enact a policy that limit sthe civil liberties of individuals, such as the policy advocated by OP, it has the burden of showing that those limits are necessary.
Gdanning
11mo ago
No one claims there are no problems. I have seen such problems myself. But the claim that a blanket ban on all displays is necessary to address those problems is a claim that is not supported by any evidence.
Gdanning
11mo ago
- If he does not have evidence for his claim, then he should not be making that claim
- If what you say is true, then it is even harder to prove that it is not happening, right?
- It is exceptionally easy to find out what is happening in schools: Ask students.
And, let me see if I understand your position: Because schools (supposedly, based on "what [you] heard") block public scrutiny, those very same schools get a pass re proving that restricting the civil liberties of their employees is justified?
Gdanning
11mo ago
Experience.
More importantly, the burden of proof is on schools to justify limitations on the personal liberty of their employees. So the burden lies on OP to show that the problem exists, not on me or anyone else to show that the problem does not exist.
Gdanning
11mo ago
Fewer than what? When I said "thousands of schools manage to negotiate that ostensible labyrinth with little trouble," I meant virtually every school allows teachers to decorate their rooms as they see fit, as long as they don't violate controversial issues policies or include decorations that are inappropriate for children somehow. You are making a claim based on zero evidence of what constitutes the norm.
Gdanning
11mo ago
And yet somehow thousands of schools manage to negotiate that ostensible labyrinth with little trouble.
Gdanning
11mo ago
Again, who said anything about students being interested? Or about the teachers telling stories of their ski trip? We are talking only about classrooom decorations.
And, we also are not talking about "cool teachers."
Gdanning
11mo ago
why should you have to pretend to be interested in their skiing trips or collection of Funkopops?
Who said anything about anyone having to pretend to be interested?
I think it's just as likely students will think that stuff is lame
Which is of course the default attitude of students towards teachers. which is absolutely fine. It isn't about trying to prove to the students that the teacher is "cool." It is trying to show that he is not a mere functionary.
then the teacher has no right to be surprised when the kids treat it like a living room in their home, and play on their phones/get up and walk around/talk to each other/don't pay attention.
- There is a big difference between having some personal items and "being decked out like a living room."
- And you have evidence that that is the case? Because in my experience, the opposite it true.
Gdanning
11mo ago
I think there should be a pretty high bar of evidence for this,
Why, if it does no harm? If a teacher has a pennant of his favorite sports team, or a picture of his family, etc. etc, what possible harm could that do? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who seek to bar such displays?
Gdanning
11mo ago
American teachers have their own classroom(?) instead of it being the room for a specific year(?)
American teachers generally have their own rooms, but they are assigned each year. Though in practice usually it is the same room every year, unless something changes.
and so they get to decorate it like it's their own personal space(?)
They can decorate it as they wish, unless a rule prohibits certain types of items. Most districts require even-handed treatment of controversial issues, so the Israeli flag probably was not kosher, no pun intended.
not a teacher deciding to bring in their toys and hobbies to plaster all over the walls.
What is wrong with that? All else being equal, a teacher who is seen by students as an individual human being, rather than as a bureaucrat, will likely be more effective on many dimensions.
Gdanning
11mo ago
In Georgia, a "terroristic threat" has little to do with terrorism; it includes includes a threat to commit any crime of violence with the purpose of terrorizing another, and is a misdemeanor unless the threat suggests the death of the threatened individual.
Gdanning
11mo ago
calling such "(legal) shenanigans" is defensible.
But the shenanigans were in 2004; you seemed to imply that they were in 2010, in response to Kennedy's death.
Gdanning
11mo ago
not the usual process for filling a Senate vacancy,
Says who? Ted Kennedy was origunally elected un a special election after JFK vacated the seat to become president. And if there were supposedly shenanigans, why not just leave the interim appointee in place (former DNC chair Paul Kirk)?
He was not being "autistically literal." He was applying the usual rule of statutory construction:
This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. . . . Most notably, the statute prohibits employers from taking certain actions “because of ” sex. And, as this Court has previously explained, “the ordinary meaning of ‘because of ’ is ‘by reason of’ or ‘on account of.’” . . . What did “discriminate” mean in 1964? As it turns out, it meant then roughly what it means today: “To make a difference in treatment or favor (of one as compared with others).” Webster’s New International Dictionary 745 (2d ed. 1954). To “discriminate against” a person, then, would seem to mean treating that individual worse than others who are similarly situated. "
Re Constitutional adjudication, the rule is somewhat different: the question is what entire clauses mean, not individual terms.* (Which is why the "no law" in the First Amendment does not literally mean "no.")
*Re the Second Amendment, "[t]he Courts of Appeals [must] ascertain the original scope of the right based on its historical meaning."
so I don't see a big difference between "high crude oil prices propped up the system" or "high crude oil prices allowed the system to buy off an interest group that would otherwise become unhappy".
Oh. I was referring to the original claim that "Oil exports were the primary source of the USSRs hard currency and allowed it to import things." I think the data re overall exports tends to undermine that specific argument. However, if the regime relied on oil revenues to buy off necessary supporters (or, more likely, gave those supporters control of the oil industry, as is often the case), oil price drops might have undermined the regime even if it did not undermine the ability to import goods.
Gdanning
11mo ago
You need to explain why that revenue was so critical in the 80s, when it had not been earlier. Plus, this indicates that total exports were pretty normal even as oil prices dropped (though I cant tell if the data is adjusted for inflation, and exchange rates might have fluctuated).
Finally, did Reagan convince them to "pump like crazy" or merely to return to normal levels of production
PS: Re oil, stronger argument seems to me is that the regime used oil revenues to provide income to various insiders (I am pretty sure that Gazprom was a govt agency) and that reduced oil revenue made it harder to ]buy off those who became increasingly discontented due to other factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory).
Gdanning
11mo ago
In the 80s the Reagan White House got the Saudis and some other gulf nations on board with a scheme to pump like hell and crash global oil prices.
That seems unlikely to be a major factor
Gdanning
11mo ago
Don't forget movie theaters, many other restaurants, and the major drug store chains
Gdanning
11mo ago
If you can have every holiday except Christmas,
If you think that Christmas is not celebrated in the US, you are mistaken. My local Starbucks is playing nothing but Xmas music.
they had a NATIVITY SCENE out in public where everyone could see it, I demand that be taken down because this country is not 100% Christian!"
You are missing the point re that issue. If the nativity scene is meant to be govt celebration of the birth of Christ*, then it would be a First Amendment violation even if the country indeed was 100% Christian.
*As opposed to a holiday celebration.
Gdanning
11mo ago
Nevertheless, OP's factual claim (which s/he apparently deemed relevant to their social engineering point, or they would not have mentioned it) was factually incorrect.
Well, if the Declaration of Independence is to be believed, it is government's job to preserve the rights of their people, so how is that a problem?
Edit: Note also that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And note that the issue in the linked case, as well as in the Satanic Temple case, is really freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. See here
More options
Context Copy link