Texsox

I think overall you are correct, but you are undervaluing how difficult it was for Kennedy. In the 1950s Catholics were very different from the other faiths. Masses were in Latin, no meat on Fridays, Non Catholics could not receive Communion (still today) very strict. They were the odd balls of the time. It was one of the central debates regarding his campaign. Perhaps that was what made it easier, people were very willing to talk out against him, and at least that got it out on the table.

Vandy is correct, the kids are told that colleges want to see a challenging schedule when deciding on admissions. The class is only optional for those kids not interested in attending a top tier University. And I fail to see much of a difference. Would those that think the teacher should be the only decision maker in electives, supporting public review over the core subjects? And if you are concerned about challenging, wouldn't you be against a book that was recently made into a movie and could be rented at Blockbuster? Remember, thousands of teachers are not using these books and their courses are just as challenging. It's like saying we can't teach Shakespeare because no one gets screwed in the ass.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) I just don't see the comparison as being nearly on the same scale. Easier being the first Catholic in 1960 or easier being the first Mormon in 2008?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Tex, how many teachers have used this book and not had any parents come out in the media about it? I'd be it'd be more than this 1 parent that was offended. And I came to decide that they were on an attention crusade because nowhere in there does it talk about them going through the traditional protocols of complaining in a sane fashion to a district. Since it is the Board of Education that removed the works, I would assume they did follow some protocol. I do not know how many have used this text without a complaint, nor do I know how many have not used it and people complained that it should have been used. Are you suggesting that the first complaint isn't valid? Doesn't someone have to be the first person to say "this isn't right". Using your logic, that first person should have shut up because it would give free publicity and they can't be right because no one else has complained. I also am not in favor of national standards, so the it's used everywhere else logic doesn't work for me. It would seem you are in favor. Frankly, I am very surprised by that. You would be only the second educator that I know that agreed with national standards. Again with the banned stuff. If a teacher was using this in a 6th grade health class to teach about safe sex, would anyone have a problem telling it was inappropriate? Would they be screaming banning? Banning is stopping everyone from ever reading the book. This is an issue of deciding if the book the best vehicle to teach AP History at this school. The hubris of his last statement is just amazing.

What gets overlooked Rex, is how many of those animals are for the restaurant, and especially the fast food, industry. Pl,us we import so much meat, I shudder to think how those McDonald's burgers wound up on my paper table mat.

We can look at physiology, anatomy, anthropology, and come up with a lot of facts. Bottom line is in 2007, we can choose not to eat meat. I've read some persuasive arguments about the health benefits of reducing and even eliminating meat. The vegitarians I know, as a group, are healthier than the hard core meat eaters. Now, I would not claim that A causes B, clearly there could be a lot of other factors.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) Nice gloss over Tex and a very well constructed straw man. You took what I actually wrote, ignored the clarifications and continued to attack the straw man that you were so deftly able to knock down. Perhaps you should read a bit more clearly in what I wrote. Here it is again. I wouldn't use that terminology for all parents -- just the ones who are clearly on an attention whoring crusade by obviously being so angered by the images in this book that they are not only telling them what they are to the kids at school but also to the school board, the local media and the national media. If you honestly believe that they are worried about children, then why give so much free pub and free press to this supposedly "dangerous" book? Now the minds of millions of children will be irrevocably warped beyond recognition by the demon inspired violence and sexual depictions of this book. There is a protocol for these situations and these parents clearly went over the teacher's head to try to get themselves some attention rather than actually solve the situation. There is a substantial difference between being responsible about what happens in a classroom and going deliberately over the teacher's head to create some attention for one's self in a political hackery campaign. And how did you come to decide that these parents are on an attention crusade? Why are kids going to be warped by NOT reading this book? Talk about straw argument? Free pub and free press? That's like attacking any drug education. If you honestly believe that they are worried about this supposedly dangerous crack, why give it so much free pub? And I don't think all teachers are wrong. Just the ones that attack parents by calling them attention whores, ignorant, hardone rubes for making the same decision that thousands of English teachers have made.

Shula usually is pretty level headed. I think the Pats getting caught actually makes their accomplishment even greater, how could it diminish it?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) I understand a parallel of sorts, but I think its on a very different scale. Could be either way. I think selling Catholicism overall would be easier than LDS. I also think we accept the differences easier today than in 1959.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) LMAO ... I know exactly what you are refering to. You may be right, I may be crazy, But it just may be some tuna fish you're lookin for...

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 01:45 PM) Oh, well, it's celestialhealing.net, that certainly sounds like a reputable source... Better fact list in support of not eating meat Alpha Dog eats meat Soxy doesn't Who would you rather have dinner with?

There is a criteria used in selecting the works that are used in a course. Thousands of English teachers chose different works than this one. They decide that other works are better suited for teaching AP History. Yet, if parents hold that exact same opinion, you believe they are ignorant, book-banning, hardon rubes. I believe public schools are owned by the public, and the public has a right and responsibility for what occurs in the school. No other public servant has complete and absolute power. If the teacher finds scrutiny that upsetting and stressful, there are plenty of private schools where they can teach whatever they want. But be forewarned, the scrutiny in private schools is 100 times greater.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) I'd rather trust the teacher, the administration who put the teacher in the classroom, the superintendent who hired the teacher, the school board who approved the teacher being in the classroom as a competent teacher much, much, much, much, much more than some ignorant, book-banning hardon rube of a parent who is "offended" at an act in a book. Would you call every teacher that didn't use Prince of Tides as an ignorant, book-banning hardon rube? Perhaps there would not be so many parents like that if there were not so many "f*** parent's opinions, they are ignorant rubes" teachers like you. If this is your attitude with parents no wonder you have all those problems.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 12:45 AM) Oh you mean the 'wrapped up like a douche' song. I love misheard lyrics. The bathroom's on the right . . .

QUOTE(BearSox @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 08:16 AM) as sad as that is, humans are omnivores, and I believe in the food chain. Food production ain't pretty. I suspect that if we had to go out and kill our own game, our diets would look a whole lot more like Soxy's. I've often said that at some point everyone should have to go out and kill their meal and see if they want to continue to eat meat. Drive out to the ranch and lay the sights on a cow and pull the trigger. Grab a knife and git r done. Carve out that steak and slap it on a grill. If you can do that, then you can head to the butcher shop and buy your meat.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 11, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) If they don't want their child reading it, then don't have them read it. Case closed. Accept the grades that one gets as a result. Complain to the teacher about the choice of the book. However, don't go on a crusade making every parents' decision for them by trying to ensure that nobody gets to read the book. Plus, most of the time that parents are "concerned" about something just means that it is a lot of undue stress and problems for the teacher which end up getting resolved with the teacher being correct. (from personal experience in the places where I've done my professional observations and my current job) And yes, I've actually had to read plenty of pieces in high school that I found less than palatable to my own opinions and taste (oddly, the same book that the other honors kid didn't think was appropriate) but I read the book because it is challenging to read. Overcome the simple "OMG THERE IS TEX SEXORS!!!!!1111!1! ELEVENTY!" and see why it is placed in there, the context of the situation, etc. Banning books in schools is absolutely insane, from any political agenda. And such a political hatchet job from you, Tex. I honestly expected more. Quit with the banning the book. Applying this definition would mean the teacher banned every book that wasn't selected. Implying that the kids can only read the books that a teacher has selected for them works both ways. Someone is making decisions on what is being read. If you want to call it selecting one and banning the others, then accept that teachers are banning millions of books, and these parents want to ban one. After all, the teacher said this is the only book they can read. Accepting your argument would mean that there is zero chance that a book would not be appropriate for High School kids and if there are, that no teacher would ever assign that material. We both know that there are materials not suitable for a High School classroom, and we both know that some teacher would want to "push the envelope" and "challenge" the kids. If the teacher doesn't want any oversight, start their own school. Public oversight in public schools. No other person employed in a public capacity has total authority, and I believe someone that is so influential with our nation's kids, should certainly be reviewed and some check and balance occur, I agree that there are easy solutions to this. If enough citizens, and administrators agree, redact the offensive materials. Assigning only certain chapters is done in College survey classes all the time.

http://www.meat.org/

Probably the best example of changing team names for ethical reasons was by Abe Pollin when he changed the Washington Bullets to the Wizards. He was returning from the funeral for assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and did not want to glorify gun violence. Funny this team has been called the Chicago Packers, Bullets, and Wizards. All have carried a negative interpretation to their name.

So of course LCR, parents could never be right? That the English teacher is omnipotent? Amazing how you support civil disobedience if it suits *your* political agenda. I'll bet if this was some right wing piece that the kids didn't want to read, you'd be coaching them, talking about rights and process. The President of the US has a check and balance, I think a high school English teacher should also.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:38 PM) You lost me. You mean Romney's Mormonism today is seen in the same light as Kennedy's Catholocism in 1960? I don't think so. Even in the 60's, I doubt much of the population saw Catholics as a cult. If they did, Kennedy wouldn't have gotten the votes he did. It was a big campaign issue. We like our Presidents old, white, and Protestant. With Kennedy, the Pope was going to open a branch office in the West Wing. Many people, and not just the "wackos" believed that Kennedy would have a higher power, the Pope, than his responsibilities as President. That is push came to shove, he would take the interests of his Church over the interests of the Country. Remember, no Catholic had been elected President at that point. Here is the speech that many believe turned the tide and allowed him to get past this issue. This issue was strongest in the south and Kennedy meeting these Ministers on their turf was huge. http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/greater-ho...ial-association The man could speak. Some of this is probably frame of reference, but Catholicism is not viewed on equal footing by mainstream Christianity. Remember the Protestant religions are protesting something, and that something is Catholicism. There are theological differences, and the most fanatical will tell you that Catholics are going to hell for their beliefs. So graphically it's something like this Protestants ---------------> Catholics -----> Mormons Sometimes I'm not certain where to fit in Jews and sadly, why even bother with thinking about any other religious or non religious beliefs? One final note, let's remember that he barely won. He probably has much in common with Bush '00. Thank Chicago and the Dem Machine. IIRC he barely won Illinois, by around 5,000 votes but won Chicago by close to 500,000.

At your service

Too much time posting and not getting work done has me in an all weekend cram session. Plenty of friends stopping by to help

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) D'OH! slacker

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) Big, big, big difference in national perception of Catholics versus Mormons. Most poeple see Catholics as a branch of Christianity, though they may disagree with some of their stands. The majority of people view Mormons as a cult. Right or wrong, that's the perception. The two are just not comparable, when looking at it from the view of the nation. I tend to agree, but am wondering if Catholic + 45 years = Mormom??

FlaSoxxJim could better answer this, but IIRC that Ray *lives* on or near the bottom. That's Karma