US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1609

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama issued an executive order on Friday directing federal, state and local agencies to incorporate projections for sea level rise in planning and construction along the coasts.

The new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard requires that all federally funded projects located in floodplains, including buildings and roads, be built to withstand flooding. The requirement, the White House said in a release Friday, would “reduce the risk and cost of future flood disasters” and “help ensure federal projects last as long as intended.”

“It is the policy of the United States to improve the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of flooding,” the order states. “These impacts are anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats. Losses caused by flooding affect the environment, our economic prosperity, and public health and safety, each of which affects our national security.”

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. can expect to see up to two feet of sea level rise by the end of the century, largely due to climate change. Warmer temperatures are causing thermal expansion in the oceans, as well as the melting of sea ice, which is pushing sea levels higher globally. A study from the U.S. Geological Survey found that half of the U.S. coastline is at high or very high risk of impacts due to sea level rise.

On January 31 2015 11:58 farvacola wrote:
It is illegal to attempt to sell your parental rights to another in all 50 states.

On January 31 2015 17:41 IgnE wrote:
Would you support a raise of the federal minimum wage to $9 right now?

On January 31 2015 18:52 zlefin wrote:
Opinion question: how many hours of minimum wage work per week should it take for a person to support just themself?
How many to support a family of four?

Only [raise the minimum wage] if you want to rip the first rung in the ladder of opportunity for teenagers, for minorities, for people who are trying to get into the job market for their first job.
The minimum wage doesn't support a family. We all know that. It’s not supposed to support a family.

Texas bill would allow teachers to use deadly force against students

A proposed bill would allow teachers in Texas to use deadly force against students and be safe from any kind of prosecution.

The Teacher’s Protection Act would allow these teachers to use force against students or anyone else on school grounds if they feel threatened. Educators would avoid prosecution for “injury or death that results from the educator’s use of deadly force” under the new legislation.

Texas law already protects teachers from disciplinary measures if they use reasonable force against a student. The law proposed by Republican Rep. Dan Flynn would allow deadly force.

On January 31 2015 20:58 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm pretty sure the conservative position is that someone on minimum wage shouldn't have a family or be able to provide for it anyway.



Source

Speaking about the condition of public schools, I guess this falls under education reform?



Source

Teachers not being able to kill their students is a problem I didn't even know we had in the education system though...

On February 01 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:

I don't know why we need a new law about this. I mean, everyone is allowed to defend themselves anyways, and that includes using deadly force. It's not like if a teacher killed a school-shooter that the teacher would be charged with murder. This seems like a redundant, unnecessary law.

Sec. 38A.003. EDUCATOR'S DEFENSE OF SCHOOL PROPERTY. (a)
An educator is justified in using force or deadly force on school
property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored event in defense
of property of the school that employs the educator if, under the
circumstances as the educator reasonably believes them to be, the
educator would be justified under Section 9.43, Penal Code, in
using force or deadly force, as applicable, in defense of property
of the school that employs the educator.

On February 01 2015 02:29 farvacola wrote:
The statute is clearly designed with the intent to make the prosecution of teachers who end up killing students that much more difficult. which is silly given how a typical criminal or civil case in Texas is likely to play out statue notwithstanding.

The NYPD will launch a unit of 350 cops to handle both counterterrorism and protests — riding vehicles equipped with machine guns and riot gear

On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:


It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic.



This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science.



No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life.

As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion").

On February 01 2015 02:46 Simberto wrote:
So, how often do teachers shoot their students in the US?

Of the top of my head i can't say that i have heard of a single case of this happening. A quick google glance shows me a few cases of students shooting their teachers, very few of teachers accidentally shooting students, but none of teachers shooting their students intentionally.

I am slightly confused in the wording in the snippet posted above "in defense of the schools property". Are you really allowed to shoot someone dead "In defense of property"? I would assume that the only acceptable reason is to prevent danger to your own life, or the life of others.

On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:


I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children?

At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has.

On February 01 2015 02:54 Millitron wrote:

In Texas, and a few other states, any commission of any forcible felony is enough to be killed over.

I think the law might be to help support the law allowing teachers to carry a gun. It's a clarification that not only can they carry a gun in schools, they can use it too.

I remember looking this up a few years ago, and then I could only find one case anywhere in the world of a teacher shooting a student on purpose, and it wasn't in the US. I can't seem to find it anymore, but I think it's safe to say its not a common occurrence.

On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:


Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there.

On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago.

Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too.

A reasonable point of view would be to teach them:
a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...)
b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here.
c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results.

With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all"

To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense.

Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic.

On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:


I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children?

At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has.

On February 01 2015 03:23 Millitron wrote:

But public schools fail pretty hard at that too. History classes tend to push progressive, enlightenment ideas as the end-all be-all of political thought and that anything else is some combination of stupid and immoral. There's absolutely no mention of any opposing thought. They don't really teach how things like evolution or Newton's Laws were supported so well that they're basically accepted as fact. I wasn't taught how they showed that heavy and light objects fall at the same rate until university, I was only taught that they do. I wasn't really taught how they proved anything, except perhaps the structure of the atom. I think the issue public schools have is that their curriculum tries to work for everyone, when clearly every student is different and could benefit from a custom-made curriculum just for them. Some students need more time in certain subjects, or need to be taught them in a particular fashion. For instance, I'm pretty much unable to learn from a textbook, I got practically all of my university education from lectures and labwork. Surely there are students who are the opposite, and only learn well out of the book. There's also gotta be students somewhere in the middle, who need a mixture of textbook reading and lectures.

Certainly many parents who home-school aren't doing it in the hope of propagandizing their kid. They're doing it to try to do better than the public school system. Sure, there probably are some who only home-school their kid to brainwash them, but likewise the public schools end up doing that too.

On February 01 2015 03:26 Slaughter wrote:


Oh, I love it when people see people on the other side of the political spectrum as the enemy and their values as "harmful". This is an example of people lacking any real exposure to a diversity of ideas.What a joke.