Not a Tailor

You need to lay off the talking points. I have a child in the public school system and my child is learning just fine. She gets the support that she needs at home, we have regular and open communications with her teacher, participate in school events and discussions and that creates an environment in which she can thrive. Tenured teachers have thus far not held her back one bit. Can the education system be improved? Sure. Is privatization the way to do it? I have quite serious doubts.

None of my friends have become teachers, as the pay is so bad. A few independently wealthy ones have become professors, but they have the economic power to tell their colleges to take a hike whenever needs be.
If the pay is bad, the best will not be attracted to the profession.

Turn education over to the private industry? You mean like Charter schools that are failing students all over the country? What a genius idea. NOT.

Most of my family practices Buddhist beliefs. My teens grew up in a theological manner based on knowledge of each religion. My daughter is Christian; we take her to church and gave her that choice. The church we attend is very welcoming with all of us knowing our beliefs. Buddhists only believe in respect to any other belief and the knowledge that any belief is considered. She also goes with us to meditate at our temple but talks to the other kids in the gardens while we are inside. Coming from living in Italy to the south here in the US (I am originally from NY) I was kinda shocked at how much influence Christianity has and how any other viewpoint is really just covered or shown to be bad (there is a sign in Gainesville on a highway with a large picture of Darwinism and a large X through it stating you should only walk with God). Religion is talked about even at work and once I had to calm the temper of a co worker screaming at me that I was an abomination that worshiped false Gods (this is not true-Buddha is one whom reached enlightenment; the buddha statue we have is a reminder of the original suffering of the first true destined Buddha-Sidhartha. The words of meditation are key words of love and rules of how to keep that with us. They are vows to ourselves. We truthfully study even the bible and teachings of Christianity). We believe in a path to enlightenment) when I never discuss my religious beliefs; it was discovered from another co-worker that I had talked to whom was aetheist.
We had a lot of problems in the schools here (my 18 year old is part of the lgbt group-again never was a problem at all in italy). Finally ended up finishing his schooling with a ged however even my daughter was bullied, and after hitting walls with the police down here, I pulled her to finish home school. Even home school groups are Christian based here and won't welcome us. We did find a secular one that is almost 2 hours away. While the teachers may not go as far as this one I would definitely say the systems have their way to advocate Christianity in a very creative way if the local authorities are on board.

That's the way to do it. Outfund the bigots.

I think transgender women or men do a little bit more than just dress up. Just saying...

Source

Good. It's about time the anti-vax crowd lost their foothold on California.

Though I'll bet that within the year, we see this one go to court and there be long, drawn out lawsuits about 'parental choice.'

Personally, I don't think that it's 'parental choice' to make your child a public health risk. I think that's negligence. Yes, there are children for whom vaccines are contraindicated and those children should absolutely not receive them, but parents who make the 'choice' not to vaccinate are making the choice to play russian roulette with the children who can't be vaccinated. That shouldn't be allowed.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/living/girl-scouts-returns-donation-transgender-girls-feat/index.html
(CNN)It's not every day the Girl Scouts or any non-profit is handed a $100,000 pledge.

The Girl Scouts of Western Washington recently received the donation to help fund activities for girls participating in Girl Scouts.

But the gift came with a catch.

As transgender stories took over the airwaves in May, the Girl Scouts national organization clarified its long-existing policy allowing transgender girls to be Girl Scouts.
That may have inspired the donor to sending a note adding one condition: "Please guarantee that our gift will not be used to support transgender girls," the note read, according to Seattle Metropolitan magazine's Monday story. "If you can't, please return the money."

Girl Scouts of Western Washington council head Megan Ferland said she felt "very sad" after receiving that letter. But shortly thereafter, she says she decided to return the money.

"Girl Scouts is for every girl," she told Seattle Metropolitan. "And every girl should have the opportunity to be a Girl Scout if she wants to."

The Western Washington council set up an Indigogo fundraiser to replace the donation, and the "Girl Scouts is #ForEVERYGirl" page has already raised more than $121,000 from about 2,400 donors in one day.

If the individual participant in question would stop espousing the idea that his life would be improved by adding more women and that homosexuals should be campaigning for his right to marry as many women as he wants--only women he holds to a very racist ideal--then he wouldn't get discussed. Maybe the problem is that specific participant and not, in fact, the rest of us. How is his racism 'family friendly?' Just because he's idealizing one specific ethnic group doesn't make it not racist and racism cannot possibly be family friendly.

It may have been a minor trauma, but the child is apparently convinced everyone at school hates him now and no longer wants to go. That means that his longterm outlook for scholastic achievement has been impaired by the actions of the teacher.

Source

Good. It's about time the anti-vax crowd lost their foothold on California.

Though I'll bet that within the year, we see this one go to court and there be long, drawn out lawsuits about 'parental choice.'

Personally, I don't think that it's 'parental choice' to make your child a public health risk. I think that's negligence. Yes, there are children for whom vaccines are contraindicated and those children should absolutely not receive them, but parents who make the 'choice' not to vaccinate are making the choice to play russian roulette with the children who can't be vaccinated. That shouldn't be allowed.

Source

Good. It's about time the anti-vax crowd lost their foothold on California.

Though I'll bet that within the year, we see this one go to court and there be long, drawn out lawsuits about 'parental choice.'

Personally, I don't think that it's 'parental choice' to make your child a public health risk. I think that's negligence. Yes, there are children for whom vaccines are contraindicated and those children should absolutely not receive them, but parents who make the 'choice' not to vaccinate are making the choice to play russian roulette with the children who can't be vaccinated. That shouldn't be allowed.

If the individual participant in question would stop espousing the idea that his life would be improved by adding more women and that homosexuals should be campaigning for his right to marry as many women as he wants--only women he holds to a very racist ideal--then he wouldn't get discussed. Maybe the problem is that specific participant and not, in fact, the rest of us. How is his racism 'family friendly?' Just because he's idealizing one specific ethnic group doesn't make it not racist and racism cannot possibly be family friendly.

If the individual participant in question would stop espousing the idea that his life would be improved by adding more women and that homosexuals should be campaigning for his right to marry as many women as he wants--only women he holds to a very racist ideal--then he wouldn't get discussed. Maybe the problem is that specific participant and not, in fact, the rest of us. How is his racism 'family friendly?' Just because he's idealizing one specific ethnic group doesn't make it not racist and racism cannot possibly be family friendly.

If the individual participant in question would stop espousing the idea that his life would be improved by adding more women and that homosexuals should be campaigning for his right to marry as many women as he wants--only women he holds to a very racist ideal--then he wouldn't get discussed. Maybe the problem is that specific participant and not, in fact, the rest of us. How is his racism 'family friendly?' Just because he's idealizing one specific ethnic group doesn't make it not racist and racism cannot possibly be family friendly.

(Sorry, mods, that the title doesn't match the article title--the title from the news outlet was poorly written and did not fully reflect the situation. I have used a title which matches the content of the article. I hope that's okay.)

I would have been much luckier if my wife had been able to move to Canada, with its actually affordable healthcare, human rights and cultural consideration that different doesn't mean evil. Unfortunately, we're stuck here until she finishes grad school. Then, hopefully, we'll be marketable enough to move to a country that has a single payer system.
Texas is no better than the rest of the US. And the rest of the US is on the same ranks on dozens of lists as many developing nations. How many lists does it have to be on before it actually counts as a developing nation and not a developed one? US supremacy is a myth, at best.

I would have been much luckier if my wife had been able to move to Canada, with its actually affordable healthcare, human rights and cultural consideration that different doesn't mean evil. Unfortunately, we're stuck here until she finishes grad school. Then, hopefully, we'll be marketable enough to move to a country that has a single payer system.
Texas is no better than the rest of the US. And the rest of the US is on the same ranks on dozens of lists as many developing nations. How many lists does it have to be on before it actually counts as a developing nation and not a developed one? US supremacy is a myth, at best.

Isn't it great to see these people waste taxpayer money? I can't wait to see them start getting fired for failure to do their jobs. If they can't do their jobs, they need to resign.

You'd think someone like him would be more worried about his tax dollars being wasted.
And also, you'd think he'd be SUPER EXCITED about gay marriage being a thing. Now he could divorce his phillippines wife, make her marry a woman and have two!

Texas isn't taking a stand. A small handful of individuals are throwing tantrums. I do agree, it's pretty darn funny to watch adults throwing tantrums like little whiny babies.
Yup. More tantrums.
He may have told them that, but most people seem to not be having tantrums. These are the last dying flames of this idiocy.
Ah, I see what it is. You want to be waited on hand and foot and it's cheaper to marry them than it would be to employ house staff.
Gay people aren't trying to force the churches to marry us. We're just trying to have legal freedom.

He also says, if you read it, that they are not guaranteed protection if they fail to issue marriage licenses and that they will be subject to lawsuits. Did you read the article or just the headline?

You'd think someone like him would be more worried about his tax dollars being wasted.
And also, you'd think he'd be SUPER EXCITED about gay marriage being a thing. Now he could divorce his phillippines wife, make her marry a woman and have two!

As illustrated above, someone who's divorced and then remarried is not in a traditional marriage. Someone who's in an interracial marriage today is not in a traditional marriage because before 1967's Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, interracial marriages were illegal in a number of states, mostly in the south. Someone who's not in a traditional marriage himself has no right to be pontificating about traditional marriages. Period.

I fail to see what is fantastic about wasting a state's resources on defending lawsuits against county clerks who "take a stand." It's an utter waste of money and court time.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Don't perform a religious marriage for gay people. But if you are involved in a public, civil act relating to marrying people of the same sex, or opposite sexes, uphold your duty to the United States and your State constitution (which cannot be written or interpreted in contravention to the US Constitution). If you don't like it, don't be in civil service. I hear there are many minimum wage jobs that are easy to perform.