|boy I can't stand religious nuts.||landru|
Jan 30, 2004 12:27 PM
This lady needs a hobby.
|boy I can't stand people who dont keep up.||bill105|
Jan 30, 2004 12:31 PM
|its posted below.|
|I agree, but how about these nuts?||Live Steam|
Jan 30, 2004 12:34 PM
"PC Police Think Term "Illegal Immigrant" is Offensive"
By now, you'd think we had heard every possible politically correct example that the liberals and the media can play games with. But, we learn over and over that there is no end. For example, note this item from HispanicBusiness.com, written by Rick Badie, questioning the use of the term "illegal immigrant." It seemes that the PC police think the term is offensive!
For Jerry Gonzalez, the term "illegal immigrant" packs as much vitriol as some racial slurs.
Many Latinos, he said, find it offensive.
"It's easy to dismiss someone when you use a disparaging term such as 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien,'" surmised Gonzalez, who oversees the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, an Atlanta-based political action committee.
"I can't speak for other immigrant groups," he said, "but on behalf of the Latino community, many people I speak to on a day-to-day basis think it serves to dehumanize the person, makes them less than human. Similar to the way the n-word was used to dehumanize African-Americans."
It's not a pressing matter for the association, but the issue of what to call the state's 228,000 illegal immigrants has taken up space on the group's 2004 legislative agenda.
Gonzalez, the executive director, plans to lobby state lawmakers to use the term "undocumented workers" when talking about Mexicans and other foreigners here illegally.
"It's a more accurate reflection of people who provide a great deal for the economy," he said.
Gonzalez's reference that the term "illegal immigrant" prompts derision does not carry weight with some others.
"I don't think so at all," said Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming." "It doesn't describe a person in a negative, pejorative way. It means they don't have U.S. citizenship and that they didn't come to the United States in a lawful manner."
"'Illegal' means you came as an immigrant, and broke the law," said Hanson, who founded the classics studies department at Fresno State University "It's a precise term, and not just for Mexicans."
D.A. King, founder of the American Resistance Foundation, a Marietta-based group that seeks tougher enforcement of immigration laws, said the term "undocumented workers" is "a politically correct invention to soften the brutal fact that these people are breaking the law."
"A good comparison would be to say a bank robber simply made an unauthorized withdrawal," he said.
But Mexicans who make illegal border crossings for job-rich cities like Atlanta "have no choice" but to break the law, said Victoria Chacon, founder and president of the South East Hispanic Media Association.
Term of choice
In La Vision de Georgia, the Spanish language newspaper she publishes Monday through Friday, Chacon has adopted "undocumented workers" as the term of choice.
"I don't think it's illegal to come here, work hard, and live in peace," she said. "They come for their family, risk their lives to find a better lifestyle."
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and many other news organizations use both "undocumented immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" in describing foreigners who are in the country illegally.
Meanwhile, Gonzalez of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials says illegal residents fall into two categories: foreigners who never got the proper papers or those who received them, but allowed them to lapse.
"Either way they are here," Gonzalez said, "undocumented in this country. The term 'illegal alien' works to discredit the honest and thoughtful discussion that needs to take place in reforming immigration policy. It doesn't move the discussion beyond the fact that we have 8 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country because
|thats the one and only point i have a problem with bush on.||bill105|
Jan 30, 2004 12:39 PM
|immigration is a huge mess.|
|Steam knows we don't need any more "socially dependants". nm||czardonic|
Jan 30, 2004 12:57 PM
|you think we do?||bill105|
Jan 30, 2004 1:00 PM
|no - but you do - which is why||MJ|
Jan 30, 2004 1:24 PM
|you would prefer not to have sex education and access to contraception for anyone who asks including those under the age of consent
now come back like you're the only parent in the whole world...
|What does it matter to you? You're on another continent. nm||No_sprint|
Jan 30, 2004 1:25 PM
|nice of you to step in for Bill 105 - he can't argue his way out of a paper bag||MJ|
Jan 30, 2004 1:38 PM
|hey - I know - how about you challenge me to a fight again?
as you know I'll be over to Dallas in March - you could give me a "kicking" then?
|theyre still pissed about that revolutionary war thing||bill105|
Jan 30, 2004 1:42 PM
|now that is funny - and so true - it's all we think about - nm||MJ|
Jan 30, 2004 1:45 PM
|now that is funny - and so true - it's all we think about - nm||bill105|
Jan 30, 2004 1:59 PM
|here is something else thats funny, its about 11pm your time and youre at home on a friday night debating politics on a freakin cycling forum. that makes you the funniest joke of all. although this is against my policy of not responding to your stupid posts and risking educating you more i just couldnt resist. so post away loser. its 5p here and i have plans. bye bye.|
Jan 31, 2004 4:31 AM
|I was stuck at work late and passing the time baiting halftwats like you
and your arithmetic let you down on the old time zone - but thanks for making the effort
|Nuts? How about this?||dr hoo|
Jan 30, 2004 5:54 PM
The article is about proposed changes to the Georgia K-12 history curriculum. When I read this kind of stuff, it makes me more and more happy that I live in a state where the educational system works.
"In the proposed changes, teachers will spend two or three weeks discussing the foundation of our country, with the remaining time devoted to studying events from 1876 to the present. Gone is any mention of the Louisiana Purchase or Lewis and Clark. There will be no discussion of Indian removal and the Trail of Tears.
Students probably will not be remembering the Alamo; it won't be a topic of discussion in Georgia's high schools. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay will be omitted, as well as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and the Underground Railroad.
Search in vain for discussion of the Civil War; that topic is off limits. In a course entitled "American History," students will not study our most devastating war. There is no mention of Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee or anything else associated with those years.
Though teachers supposedly have no time to discuss topics essential to understanding our heritage, the curriculum suggests they have their students write a 1920s radio drama. Teachers are also encouraged to assign essays about dating in the Jazz Age and to show segments from "All in the Family," "Good Times" and "Chico and the Man.""
|Nuts? How about this?||Spoiler|
Jan 31, 2004 9:09 AM
|I think it's a great idea to focus on more contemporary U.S history. I went to school in the early 80's in upstate New York and we spend weeks in EACH and EVERY grade studying pioneers, civil war battle names, Columbus, etc.
We never spent a any times studying the Korean or Vietnam wars. No teacher ever mentioned the Bay of Pigs the Jazz Age.
Same thing for English. We had to read just about all of Dickens and Steinbeck. We never were introduced to any work by authors of the 60's or 70's. The message sent was that literature was something antique, something nobody does today. All in all, kids got the impression that history ended in WWII, and nothing of any consequence has happened since. Kids enter college nothing nothing about the recent decades. But we're constantly told the last twenty five years have seen more change than the last 100.
I don't see how spending years memorizing the names of Columbus' ships is more relevant to today's world than studying the anti-nuclear demonstrations of the late '70's.
When old people (not referring to you) cry and moan that kids don't know their history as well as they do, they have to realize that kids today have a lot more history to study. Something has to go.
|Yeah, no need to mention that civil war thing in 12 years...||dr hoo|
Feb 1, 2004 4:44 AM
|... of history classes. The civil war had NO impact on Jim Crow laws, or the civil rights movement, the voting rights act and the civil rights act in the 60's, or anything at all on today's events.
MAYBE I can see that ignoring the start of democracy, or the invention of logic and science, or the crusades, or the dark ages, or any of that might make for better history k-12. I can certainly see the importance of contemporary history. But they are skipping THE CIVIL WAR!
As for english, I heard a story on the radio a few weeks ago about a teacher in LA who is internationally known. He teaches Shakespeare to 5th graders. His underprivledged kids from South Central go to Stanford, Harvard and the like. He fires them up about LEARNING. When he proposed teaching the classics to 5th graders early in his career, the head of the school board said "I like your ideas, but I would rather you teach something academic." Proposal denied.
This guy is the lowest paid teacher in his school. Why? Because he does not go to the stupid "certification" classes needed for raises. Classes where he would learn things like how to use "Chico and the Man" to teach his kids.
The Civil War? Come on, defend leaving that out.
|Some things are better left as apolitical as possible ...||Live Steam|
Jan 31, 2004 9:43 AM
|Education should be one of them. However it seems that every special interest group wants to foist their agenda upon young minds or have their oppositions position barred form view. I know the Georgia issue goes against your sensibilities, as it does mine, but the reverse issue was a big for educators at one time.
I sometimes wonder if we would be better off teaching the 3 'Rs', basic history and leaving the interpretation of such to the individual student. I know recanting historical events is in the eyes of the beholder, but to eliminate basic understanding of how this nation was formed and the internal conflict that almost destroyed it, is negligent and irresponsible. I wonder, do they even teach geography in school anymore? Americans, especially younger Americans are downright dumb when it comes to knowing basic information like - what country is immediately north or south of the United States? I saw some kid on Leno or one of the late night shows - he was asked where Canada was. His response was Europe?!
Europeans on the other hand have a pretty good knowledge of geography and even history. Their primary and secondary schools far surpass ours. Their universities, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired. Everyone in Europe is 'in University'. However only those that really know what they want to do ever learn anything. 90% of the students 'in University' in Italy are Architecture students (exaggerated and this was my observation when I was studying there), but they don't think they produce that many architects. Go figure.
|according to CNN, Carter said he's embarrassed for Georgia (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Jan 30, 2004 1:33 PM
|according to me I'm embarrassed Carter was ever Pres||bill105|
Jan 30, 2004 1:37 PM
|re: boy I can't stand religious nuts.||Woof the dog|
Jan 30, 2004 1:36 PM
|I rest my case.
This country is going straight to hell
|private schooling||Duane Gran|
Feb 2, 2004 9:02 AM
|As if my confidence in public schooling wasn't bad enough. More ammunition for why I like private schools.|| |