knapplc

Thanks for your contribution to the conversation, Johnny.

Most teachers I know don't agree with No Child left behind because it is very unrealistic. But if you ask them it isn't the most damaging, the most damaging are the parents to our nation's schools. If you look at any child you will be able to predict the outcome very accurately based on the child's home life. Those parents who take an interest in their child's education tend to flourish, those who are left to their own devices flounder. Those children who are neglected and come to school dirty and hungry; very seldom do you see them succeed. Those children who are verbally/physically abused or see their parents shoot drugs rarely care about school. They much bigger worries in their lives. Parents from what I have heard are the biggest indicator of success or failure of a student. That's really nice, Johnny. We're talking about the damage that government has caused to schools, though.

Generally the area would be wiped down if for no other reason than to make sure any potential injuries are identified & cleaned/treated. It's been reported that Zimmerman declined to be transported to the hospital for further treatment but I have no idea how accurate that is (the incident report merely says he was treated and then brought to the station after the medical team cleared him. It is also being reported that he was treated the next day for the broken nose, again I have no idea if that is true or not. Those medical reports will come out and will help clear up some pretty muddy waters. Right now there's so much blank space it's nearly impossible to come up with any conclusion. Way too many people deciding on this situation, one side or the other, without enough facts.

Johnny, you said you were going to find the numbers to support this allegation. Where are those stats in anything you've linked?

Of course you know, Johnny. Don't be disingenuous, now.

If you ask teachers what the most damaging thing to our nation's schools has been they'll tell you it's No Child Left Behind - a Republican initiative. Not sure what you think the Democrats have done to damage the school systems. The article you cited is from 2010, and cites a three-year AFP study, meaning the bulk of the study you're pinning on Democrats came from George Bush's legislation. The Federal Budget issues you're bringing up include pork from both parties, including George Bush's many wars. You are vastly misrepresenting the position of the Occupy crowd by calling them lazy deadbeats. I'm certain there are lazy people in the crowd, but the majority of them work for a living.

Where's the part about Greece, Johnny?

Why did Coach Brown say, when asked to give his name and address, "Coach Ron Brown, One Memorial Drive?" Why didn't he just say he was Ron Brown, who lives at his actual home address? Why do you think he said that, Johnny?

Your opinion is that creating a hostile work environment is not enough to fire someone. Decades of case law disagree with you, but *I* am the one who doesn't get it. OK. You are assuming now that Ron Brown and his beliefs are a hostile work environment. Simply believing in something is now a case for being fired in your opinion? Sieg Heil Nowhere have I said that Ron Brown created a hostile environment, or that he should be fired. And Ron Brown didn't "simply believe in something" in this instance. He gave an unsolicited public statement against gays and cited his HOME ADDRESS as 1 Memorial Stadium, wrapping himself in the flag of UNL to espouse something that UNL most definitely does not stand for.

That's a brilliant idea.

Totally not fibbing. I so wish I could remember that thing I once read or saw or heard, or any of the numbers, but man, it was really clear that we're screwed. I can't support that statement in any way, but really - just believe me.

Your opinion is that creating a hostile work environment is not enough to fire someone. Decades of case law disagree with you, but *I* am the one who doesn't get it. OK.

That is so weird! I can't remember where I read it and I don't have the numbers on hand at the moment, but I was watching a show that said exactly the opposite of that. What are the odds?

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally? I was just pointing out that if you are feeling uncomfortable and that is the only requirement there are many grey areas. I agree you need to produce more but using his guidelines anyone making another employee uncomfortable has a case for a dismissal. You're saying we should prosecute the shopkeeper because he protested against the man who robbed his store. You're asking why isn't the opposite of the law fair. Simple answer - it's not fair because society has decided that certain things are illegal, and this is one of them. Robbing a store is not a protected activity. Impinging on the rights of gays is not a protected activity - and soon it will be a federally prosecuted action, in my opinion.

How does it create a hostile work environment to support the right of homosexuals to be treated equally?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Being outwardly against homosexuality does not inherently create a hostile work environment (or a hostile education environment, in the case of students or student-athletes). It depends greatly on how you demonstrate your belief. Simple conversations where one person says they're against something almost never rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Continually repeating that dislike over and over and over could, as could stating a desire to see harm inflicted on gays (or whatever group you're talking about). The list of things that could create a hostile work/education environment is pretty long. The initial burden of proof lies with the accuser. If someone alleges there was a hostile work/education environment created by statements, they have to show that the action/statement occurred and that there was offense given, typically intentionally. The employer (or school) will attempt to show that reasonable person in that situation would not have felt harassed (yes, that's a HUGE gray area), and/or that there were remedies available that weren't taken by the accuser, and/or that the accuser themselves have participated in similar speech/actions.... there are lots of affirmative defenses. From there the accuser has to show that the employer's defense is a pretext, a cover for intentional discrimination, or a cover for criminal negligence - looking the other way/not knowing when they should have known - that kind of thing. The waters are always murky in these situations.

I don't need to connect Coach Brown's comment to a hostile environment for three reasons: 1) I wasn't suggesting or insinuating that Coach Brown did any such thing, 2) I did not suggest that Coach Brown should be fired, and 3) you didn't specifically tie Coach Brown's testimony to his potential termination in your original question, so I presumed you were speaking hypothetically and not specifically about Coach Brown's termination based on his testimony. UNL could terminate his employment if they determine that Coach Brown's statements create a sufficiently hostile environment for UNL's LGBT population, even though his statements weren't made on campus. Coach Brown put himself in a position of exposure by stating his address as 1 Memorial Stadium, a huge no-no on many different levels. UNL does not adhere to the beliefs Coach Brown espoused in his statement - in fact, their public stance is quite the opposite. Freedom of religion is one thing. Using your religion as a bludgeon to attack those who think/feel/live differently than your religious views dictate is NOT protected under law. Doing so will get you canned, and it's perfectly legal.

Cost is the key thing, and that's a great point to bring up. Yes, healthcare costs a lot. But that doesn't mean that those needing healthcare are to be punished. It means that costs need to be controlled. That, to me, is the largest swing-and-miss of Obamacare. Most everyone agrees that some reform was needed because costs of healthcare are outstripping consumers' abilities to pay for it, but instead of figuring out a way to help rein in costs, Obamacare simply says, "You have to cover everyone." That's nice, but it doesn't fix the problem. I'll be the first to admit I don't have the answer to healthcare costs. But the current political battle is no more likely to solve the problem than Obamacare did. And meanwhile, we live in the most prosperous nation on earth, yet a huge chunk of our population cannot afford the basic healthcare offered by countries half as wealthy as us.

To answer your second question first, yes, it can be discriminatory to fire someone solely because of their religious beliefs. However, the caveat to that is that, while you have freedom to hold whatever religious views you want, you ALSO have freedom from religion if you choose. For example: You cannot fire a person because they are a Pastafarian. But at the same time, that Pastafarian cannot proselytize their belief in such a way that it creates a hostile working environment. You CAN be fired due to your religion if the exercise of that religion creates harassment for others. Being religious (or atheist, or agnostic) is not a shield from discipline/termination based upon that religion.

Yes, because clearly what I meant was NOT a reference to poor healthcare, but actually I was implying that I'd like to wait six months for emergency surgery. I'm glad we're all on the same page now.

Happy Birthday, benny. Don't know where else to put this, so I'm going to leave it here as a present. It's cool. Click it. LINK

Pocket passer?

I've done both. I like putting the crust directly onto the grates best. If I'm baking pizza in the oven I put my stone in but I usually use the pans, and just use the stone to regulate heat. If you're using a stone you really need to heat them up for an hour before you cook or they lose too much surface temp when you put your crust on. On the grill, that's a lot of pre-heat time.