Yantelope V2 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Oh but Media Matters is a totally trustworthy source and Fox is run by rednecks. The sad thing is, this isn't surprising. Neither is this with Michelle Antoinette as First lady http://www.carolinaj...ve.html?id=8762 Wow, that story is kind of shocking. I can't believe we have child lunch inspectors. Another example of why all the money we dump into education never actually improves test scores. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Oh but Media Matters is a totally trustworthy source and Fox is run by rednecks. I've no opinion of Media Matters. My implication was Fox News is perfectly capable of embarrassing and discrediting themselves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Neither is this with Michelle Antoinette as First ladyhttp://www.carolinaj...ve.html?id=8762 What, may I ask, does a state employee making a retarded decision based on a misreading of a state regulation have to do with Michelle Obama? Or the Federal government more generally, for that matter? *Edit* - Yes, the state program requires pre-K programs to provide meals that meet USDA guidelines, and the USDA is a Federal agency, but it's the state making it mandatory, not the feds. Edited February 14, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Neither is this with Michelle Antoinette as First ladyhttp://www.carolinaj...ve.html?id=8762 What, may I ask, does a state employee making a retarded decision based on a misreading of a state regulation have to do with Michelle Obama? Or the Federal government more generally, for that matter? Michelle Obama is the one pushing the whole healthy lunch initiatives. Federal money is withheld from the states if they don't meet these ridiculous standards set up by the Department of Agriculture (a department that could stand to be downsized) Really, is it any business of the federal orstate government what kids bring to school in their lunch boxes? My wife and I have already all but decided to homeschool our kids or send them to a private school. Public schools are worthless these days. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Send them to a private school if you can afford it. You might be able to give them a better formal education at home, but there are lots of important social skills that kids learn at school that are hard to teach in a home schooling environment. *Edit* - Re the Fox News thing, I think we can all pretty much agree that all the cable news networks are terrible. They're out to make money and more people will tune in to see conflict than will tune in to see a balanced reporting on all sides of the issue. Edited February 14, 2012 by TheMightyEthan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Well, the fact that actual reporting gets low ratings speaks to the fact that the public just wants to hear news that backs up their already formed opinions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Well, the fact that actual reporting gets low ratings speaks to the fact that the public just wants to hear news that backs up their already formed opinions. Which is why I don't get the hate on Fox News except for the fact that they are the one solitary news outlet out there that leans to the right. So unless you also hate, CBS (remember Dan Rather's forged documents?) CNN, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The New York Post, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, NPR etc. Fox's actual news reporting is actually quite fair. Brit Hume, who just retired, was in my opinion the most unbiased news caster that I can remember (I will admit that Tim Russert, despite working for Jimmy Carter, was quite fair) with Chris Wallace being right up there as well. The thing with Fox News (same with CNN et. all) is that the majority of programming shown are opinion shows. People tend to judge the network based on the opinion shows. People also forget that before Glenn Beck's 15 minutes of fame on Fox, he was on CNN making money for them. Fox News on Sirius XM has some left leaning shows (Alan Colmes for one) so there is a mixture but a lot of it comes down to what Americans want to watch. If you want Liberal opinion you have dozens of outlets: Conservative you pretty much have just Fox and Rush Limbaugh. If I had to pick one news source I could trust, I'd probably go with the Wall Street Journal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Send them to a private school if you can afford it. You might be able to give them a better formal education at home, but there are lots of important social skills that kids learn at school that are hard to teach in a home schooling environment. I think a big part of that depends on the kid. I know people who were home schooled who are far more social than I am. Besides, there are other venues for socialization (church, town sports, that sort of thing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Yeah, I didn't mean it's impossible, just it's difficult. Part of that is because it's important that they have a lot of time to socialize with bunches of other kids around their age, and that can be hard to arrange outside of school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://www.theglobea...article2336889/ Canadian MPs giving us a glimpse into how the next round of SOPA/PIPA-like internet censorship/surveillance bills will go down. It's much harder to say "oh well if you don't like this bill you must hate the hollywood industry" and convince folks than "if you're against this bill you must be pro child porn". And a piece on Wired about the rise of cyberwarfare chants, yet the lack of evidence, is reminiscent to the pre-Iraq War WMD talk. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/yellowcake-and-cyberwar/ Cyber-security is still a good idea though, but more at a corporation level than a gov't one. (Not that the US is oblivious to the potential uses of cyberwarfare for sabotage, as seen in the Stuxnet attack on Iran.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 In regards to fox news, I can't claim to have a complete picture, but: I honestly don't care where Glenn Beck used to be. That's in the past. Right now he's making himself look like an ass on Fox, nowhere else. Also, I have not seen a single instance of Fox News reporting on anything relating to my country, Sweden, where they haven't skewed the story wildly to make us out as socialism taken to a ridiculous extreme. As for the rest of the ones mentioned, I don't have much of an opinion. They certainly seem more capable of reporting about scandinavia than Fox is. Not that that's an achievement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 In regards to fox news, I can't claim to have a complete picture, but: I honestly don't care where Glenn Beck used to be. That's in the past. Right now he's making himself look like an ass on Fox, nowhere else. Glenn Beck hasn't been on Fox since June. His show got canceled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Oh? Well that's good. As I said, Swede here, not exactly up to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 wrt to that "Attack Fox News" story, I'm sure that lots of companies have entire laundry lists of vaguely unsavoury things they'd like to do to a competitor. These lists then land on legals desk and get pared down (or stripped to the bone). Since Fox is not alleging that this other company actually did anything, this is akin to finding out that someone you don't get on with really doesn't like you. Which is hardly news. The school lunch thing is a bit, nanny state-ish. I guess it can be explained, if not justified, under the goal of reducing childhood obesity, but I think that if lunches are inspected, the most that should happen is that the school contact the parent directly to suggest a more balanced lunch. The parent can then tell the school to eff off if they so choose. If it's an issue of the child coming in with no lunch, or just a bar of chocolate and a can of red bull every day and the parent tells you to go forth and be fruitful then you put in a call to child services or whatever the relevant body is and they can investigate. I don't think you can have a pop at the First Lady for wanting kids lunches to be healthier. It's not like she's physically one poking her nose into the lunchbox. Finally, Ethan, what's that referring to? A specific news story? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I believe it's referring to the controversy on whether conservative employers should be required to provide birth control via health plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Oh right. Yeah they should. Got to be cheaper than paying for maternity leave and cover. Suck it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Specifically, the question is about religious organizations that employ a large percentage of employees of a different religion (like Catholic hospitals, for example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Oh right. Yeah they should. Got to be cheaper than paying for maternity leave and cover. Suck it up. Actually, legally I don't think you have to provide paid maternity leave (at least not in Texas). You just have to provide unpaid leave for up to 12 weeks I believe. And also what Ethan said. It's a pain of a question because you're talking about freedom of religion vs. anti discrimination. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Yeah, Federal law only requires unpaid leave, though some states require paid (usually not for the whole 12 weeks though). *Edit* - When we're talking about religion it's one thing, because we do have the first amendment specifically protecting religion, but there's now a bill in the senate that would make it so any employer can deny coverage for any medical treatment they are opposed to on moral grounds. I think that's pretty ridiculous, you don't get to be exempt from the laws just because you're morally opposed to them. What if there are employers who are morally opposed to employing black people? Or Jews? Or women? I know this law wouldn't allow that, and there are differences between not providing health coverage and not employing certain groups, but I don't see how the reasoning is meaningfully different. Edited February 15, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't think it's exactly comparable to equal opportunity employment because you'd be denying the same medical coverage to all your employees right? Nobody could get contraceptives regardless of race or gender so I guess you have equity in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Specifically, the question is about religious organizations that employ a large percentage of employees of a different religion (like Catholic hospitals, for example). So if I work for a Jehova's Witness run outfit they can refuse to pay for my blood transfusion!?! Crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I mean, even if that is the position shouldn't that just be listed as part of your job benefits? I mean, when you're deciding where to work don't you still have the freedom to choose an employer who does provide insurance for transfusions? I don't really see how it's discriminatory if it's applicable to all employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Agreed, not discriminatory, just... a bit... mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yeah I don't think it's discriminatory either, but I do think the idea of people getting exceptions to the law because of moral disagreement is pretty ridiculous. As I said, it's a little different with religion because there's the first amendment specifically addressing religious freedom, but to expand it to any moral disagreement is a recipe for chaos. I just picked some admittedly extreme examples of things I think are justifiable with the same reasoning. @Thursday: That law hasn't passed yet, it's just proposed. So Jehovah's witnesses cannot yet refuse to cover blood transfusions for their employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.