The problem is that modern day "liberals" are no longer liberal. Conservatives are closer to what liberal actually means than the people who call themselves liberal. It can be confusing talking about liberals because the definition of the word is the opposite of most people who identify as liberal.
Modern day "liberals" aren't liberal. You are correct about what a liberal is, but the people who call themselves liberal today have sullied the word by advocating against liberal ideas.
It is kind of like how Christina Hoff Summers calls herself a feminist. She identifies with what they originally supported, equality, not the modern feminists who advocate against equality. She wants to take back the word and bring it back to what it is supposed to mean.
I understand if a liberal person still wants to call themselves a liberal and fight to reclaim what the word is supposed to mean. But for me, I no longer want to call myself that word because of what people have done to the meaning of liberal. I'm still a liberal by definition just like I'm a feminist by definition. But I'm not going to call myself either of those things because of how people have distorted what those words mean.
I wish there would be some kind of event where conservatives "come out" about being conservative at the same time. If one person comes out as conservative at a leftist workplace, it is easy to fire that one person and maintain the culture of fear about coming out as conservative. If all the conservatives came out at the same time, the left wouldn't be able to cancel all of them.
The mainstream keeps conservatives quiet kind of like how communist and socialist countries keep citizens quiet about disagreeing with the government. The government knows they can't fight everyone who opposes their tyranny so they maintain a culture of fear. Where if someone speaks out against the government, they disappear in the night. They go after anyone who speaks out even a little bit so that everyone else is afraid to speak out. That way the people don't realize how many people agree with them and they can't get together to fight the government.
Watching leftists try to respond to "Islam is right about women" was some of the funniest shit ever. They called it hate speech, but couldn't actually define what was hateful about it. "I think it's supposed to be offensive to women and Islam, but I'm not sure." They know islam says some bad shit about women, but couldn't admit it due to their ideology.
I fear people have become normalized to our current level of gun regulations. The argument always seems to be between more regulation or no more regulation. Team less regulation doesn't seem to be that popular or a very common view in the eyes of the public.
It is infinitely easier to give up a right than to reclaim a lost right. That's why it is so important to defend the rights you have, you might not be able to reclaim them without a revolution.
What give the school system the authority to measure your children's physical fitness?
California Education Code Section 60800
What is even the legality of collecting what can be argued is private health information from minors?
Well according to California law, it would be illegal to not do it.
Are schools HIPPA compliant?
HIPAA and if anyone learns the BMI of the kid besides the doc, kid, and kid's parents, then no. And not only does federal law supersede state law, but HIPAA makes it very clear that HIPAA is the highest authority on the subject and state law can't beat it.
Shit's fucked in California. They just go against federal law like it is no big deal, and the proper channels to remedy the situation are just as fucked as the state.
What is going on? Everything about this is just wrong.
Why is there a LAW that children have to have a physical fitness test in the first place? The state doesn't need its dick in every aspect of your life.
Why do they need to tell the other students a kid's BMI? You should be able to keep that between you and your doc.
Do they honestly think that quitting the testing will get kids to quit making fun of the fat kid or the tranny?
Why is having two categories for sexes a problem for BMI when the whole reason for the two categories is to account for the difference in bone density between male and female?
My biggest problem with capital punishment isn't that it is wrong to kill guilty people who deserve it, it is that sometimes innocent people get wrongly executed. Our justice system isn't perfect and we accept that. We do our best to make sure only the truly guilty get convicted, but sometimes, the justice system fails. Sometimes an innocent person is sent to jail. Imprisoning an innocent person is bad enough, but killing an innocent person is not something I could ever condone the state having the power to do.
"We could have a higher burden of proof for executions or we could only allow executions if there is a confession." We have already tried that and there have still been hundreds of innocent people executed. I know when you look at the number of criminals prosecuted in the history of the US, a few hundred is an extremely small number, but that number is still too high for me. One innocent person being killed is too high for me.
If there was a guaranteed way to ensure that only guilty people would be executed, then I would support it, but there isn't. I'm willing to accept that sometimes our justice system fails and innocent people are sent to jail. We do our best to prevent that and we try to make it right when it is found out an innocent person is sent to jail. But if an innocent person is killed, there is no way of making that right. The cost of one innocent person being killed is a price too high to pay. I'd rather have all the criminals who deserve to be executed to spend their life in prison than allow even a single innocent person to be wrongfully executed.
I'm not willing to sacrifice even a single person just to kill criminals who deserve it instead of just keeping them in a deep dark hole for the rest of their lives. Whatever justice could be done by killing someone who deserves it is never enough to make up for the loss of one innocent life taken by the hands of the government.
"I've got really hairy balls. It is the kind of hair that turns blonde in the sun. So I spend a lot of time with my balls in the sun. And the neighbor kids will come along and rub my balls down because they like to watch the hair pop back up. So I learned a lot about roaches. I learned a lot about kids rubbing my balls. And I love kids rubbing my balls."
-Joe Biden
"That's just a slippery slope fallacy."
That was an argument I used to make, quite a lot. I don't like being made the fool.
Sex with adults, in your bedroom, your house, is your business. That was what I agreed to. Somewhere along the line, it was brought into the public and then children were brought into it. There were two lines, adults and in private. Two conditions that I believed it was okay, adults and in private. Both of those lines have thoroughly been crossed.
I still don't see a reason why adults in private should have to go any further than that, but I can't deny that it did not stop there.
Back then, I thought X will lead to Y was a slippery slope. I still don't understand why X has to lead to Y and can't just stop at X. But it is quite clear that X has led to Y.
It is rough knowing I supported X when it quite clearly led to Y. But I can tell you it isn't a mistake I will make twice.
"that will reorient and save the world."
I hope you are right, but I don't share your optimism. Trump only has 5 more years and I don't think that is enough time to do what needs to be done. He has done so much good for the country in the time he has already had, but I fear everything will just go back to normal after he is gone.
So far I haven't seen anyone who can match the fervor Trump has in fighting for this country, I'm just hoping someone comes along. I have seen some good things in the junior Don, you can tell he has some of his father in him, but he isn't a politician (at least he isn't right now). And I don't know of anyone who could take up the mantle. There are some politicians out there who look okay, but none of them seem able to fight as hard as Trump does.
You know those tests of the emergency broadcast system where it interrupts the show, plays a tone, and shows a message that it is a test of the EBS? Well they are basically going to do that every day, but instead of day "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System," it will say, "Orange Man Bad."
I do think there is a very important aspect to going to school with other students that home school can't give a child. It isn't what they teach, but the socialization with other people that a child learns. I also think it is extremely important for children to learn this while young and still developing.
While at school with other kids, children learn things like, how do I make friends, how do I talk to strangers, how do I deal with assholes, how to I ask for help, how to I be assertive, how to I stand up for myself, how do I figure out things on my own, how do I deal with peer pressure, how do I talk to someone I am attracted to, how to I act when I am uncomfortable, how do I deal with rejection, how to I deal with failure, as well as other aspects of socialization.
There is no doubt in my mind that homeschooling is far better for children at teaching them book smarts, but I believe it leaves them lacking at many other aspects of growing up. I know that homeschooling parents will try to do things like meetups with other homeschooling parents, but you just can't get the same thing without a child going to a school with other students.
Every single homeschooled child I have ever met has been quiet, shy, and awkward, but they are also some of the best educated children I have ever seen. A hybrid of homeschool and school with other kids sounds good depending on what that means.
What one of my friends did was she homeschooled her child until 8th grade and then sent him to a school with other students so he could learn to socialize with other kids. Another friend had her kid in school 3 days per week and homeschool the other two days until high school in which her kid went to school full time with a couple hours of homeschool after school most days to keep up on education. I don't know what type of system or what type of hybrid is best, I just believe that while homeschool might be the best education, there are things a child can't learn being homeschooled and need to go to school with other students to learn.
Where I live in Ohio, school funding is based on your property taxes. A specific percentage of the property taxes go to the local school district. Every year, there is a vote that we are allowed to raise our property taxes for schools, and the amount they are raised by go directly to the school. This specific part of property tax only goes to the school and any raise of this part of property tax will only go to schools.
So how does school funding work with the system you are talking about? Is it the same percentage of property tax for the whole state that goes to schools for the whole state? Do counties have the same yearly vote to raise property tax to fund schools more? If so, why would people ever want to vote for that tax increase if the funding is distributed across the whole state instead of directly given to the school your child will be going to?
My favorite part of the article:
>Warren’s crackdown on elite charter schools would leave elite private schools like Kirby Hall (the charter school she sent her kid to) unscathed, while greatly eliminating charter schools as a parallel option for lower-income families.
I could maybe see an argument for this if it wasn't a prescription. Like you have X disease, the pharmacist says Y medicine will hurt you and he won't let you hurt yourself. I would still be against that, but I might see an argument for the pharmacist thinking that you don't know enough about medicine to determine for yourself what you should take. But this isn't an uneducated decision you made because you googled your symptoms on webmd. This was a doctor telling you that the medicine was safe for you and determined that the benefits outweigh the risks. Some med school flunkie doesn't get to overrule your doctor's decision.
I want to say sue, but whatever you get from winning might not be worth it. You spend a butt load of time and money just for the judge to say they have to fill your prescription? Wouldn't be worth it.
I'd see if you can get a free consultation by a lawyer. It might turn out that violating HIPPA like this would be a big payout. And if the lawyer thinks it is a slam dunk, he might represent you for free just taking a percentage of the winnings. If you can get a free consultation it wouldn't hurt to just ask a lawyer and maybe you would get some cash.