| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Paul J. Berg" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2007 11:57:52 AM |
| Object: |
"It's just pot." |
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 14, 2007
VERNONIA (Oregon) -- Chatter filled the hot, hazy air here Friday, from
a swimming hole where wrestlers backflip off long knotted ropes to a
senior center thrift shop where tutting ladies pursed their mouths, from
the local credit union where tellers came to tears to the hardware and
auto parts stores where regulars spoke like oracles: The fate of Aaron
Miller was on the minds and lips of Vernonians.
And so was the fate of Miller's champion, Kenneth Cox.
Miller is the elementary school principal who admitted smoking pot last
week when a deputy questioned him at Fort Stevens State Park near
Warrenton; Cox is the school superintendent who welcomed a school board
decision Thursday that leaves the principal on the job.
Vernonia is the school district whose decision to randomly test athletes
for drugs was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995.
It's the kind of small former logging town where summer vacation equals
fresh-air boredom -- in the woods, along the reservoir, beside the
creek, behind the diner. Canopies of towering fir and cedar shade
fishing holes. A pioneer museum draws visitors down the main
thoroughfare, which crosses one bridge midtown and another on the way
out. Yes, it's called Bridge Street.
A police blotter in The Independent, the weekly newspaper, offers what
you might expect in a place with a population of 2,300: 10 people
stopped for riding bikes without helmets; a runaway taken to social
services; two minors released to their parents after being found with
liquor; a woman arrested for possession of controlled substances; drug
paraphernalia found and destroyed.
"It's rural Oregon," said Jay Nesmith, behind the counter of Vernonia
Hardware. "We've got that laid-back, lefty hippie lifestyle going on
here."
Meaning: Drugs haunt this place.
Signs near the school campus shared by grade, middle and high school
students warn it is a "Tobacco Free Zone." The local chapter of the
Lions Club -- to which Miller, 41, belongs -- supports a program to
educate kids about the dangers of drugs such as marijuana. Students on
sports teams face random urine tests. Failure can lead to suspension,
costly drug rehab classes, loss of ranking.
Miller will face undisclosed disciplinary consequences.
"I have been accused of setting a double standard in taking this
action," Cox wrote in a statement posted on the district's Web site
Friday. "I believe, however, that I have set a higher standard for
Vernonia administrators than for other staff members. Mr. Miller will be
dealt with in a fashion similar to, but more severe than, that which we
deal with students. If a student is caught using drugs they face
consequences -- but being summarily expelled from school is not one of
them."
"They let him slide"
The decision to allow Miller to stay was met with relief at the Vernonia
Country Kitchen, where Shawnna Lloyd delivered baskets of bacon burgers
and grilled ham-and-cheese sandwiches to a pair of patrons.
"He's a nice guy," she said, echoing many here where even childless
residents keep track of teachers and coaches.
Her fifth-grade daughter, Melissa, and kindergartner, Christopher,
attend Washington Grade School, where Miller is the popular principal.
Popularity aside, lifeguard John Murray wondered how students would
react to what amounted to "a slap on the wrist."
"They let him slide," said Murray, 47, never taking his eyes off the
river, dammed for summer, where a dozen kids paddled. "What a horrible
example for them. He's supposed to be a role model. I think he should
have been removed."
Irving Russell, on a bench outside the senior center, agreed.
"They raise hell about kids and drugs," said the 75-year-old retired
bridge inspector, "and then when the principal comes along -- who knows
better -- they exonerate him. Seems to me he and the superintendent
should be brought down."
Teens shrug it off
Just out of town, high school wrestlers Tylor Owen, 16, and Zack
Nutting, 15, swung from ropes at the idyllic swimming hole, an elbow in
the creek where crawdads troll underfoot.
Neither had been born when the school district started mandatory drug
testing of its athletes in 1989, nor two years later when a
seventh-grader, James Acton, refused to take a drug test as part of a
tryout for middle school football. He was banned from playing, and his
parents sued the school district. The case made it to the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1995, and in a 6-3 decision, justices upheld the district's
policy.
But between splashes, the teens said they knew about the history and
about current rules that test them during the wrestling season. They
mentioned classmates and friends who faced discipline for dabbling in
drugs. It didn't seem fair, they said.
Still, they shrugged off Miller's conduct in the state park, where
Deputy Chance Moore approached the principal after sunset and smelled
marijuana. When he asked whether Miller had been smoking pot, the
onetime baseball coach and teacher became visibly upset and said, "I
could be in a lot of trouble for this, but, yes, I have been smoking
marijuana."
The Vernonia School Board called the incident a single act of "poor
judgment," adding that Miller had voiced "very sincere remorse for his
actions."
Owen and Nutting were also willing to let bygones be.
"I don't think he should be taken out just for this," Owen said.
Nutting chimed in, tugging the rope before swinging into the still air:
"It's just pot."
.
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
19 Jul 2007 07:44:30 PM |
|
|
"Gatt" <gatt@juggerFUbot.com> wrote in message
news:139n94mqm51tie0@corp.supernews.com...
I think that given his position he could lead by example and enroll in a
rehabilitation program or something similar now that he's NOT worried
about
keeping his job. (IE, he's not pulling a Senator and trying to find
justification for his behavior by bailing out to rehab.)
Naaah. He should just apologize and go back to his life. There's no rehab
for pot -- it's not addictive. He wasn't doing any harm, to himself or
anyone else.
Curt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nimue" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 01:01:11 PM |
|
|
Gatt wrote:
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469b9e12$0$20549$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Again -- I was under the impression that this was a huge campsite,
state park kind of place where he could reasonably assume he had
privacy.
Ft. Stevens is the largest state park in America except for Gulf
Shores, Alabama. There's plenty of room for privacy. Somehow, he
got caught. 'Course, when he did, he told the police the truth.
The community must really respect the guy, though.
That says a lot. They want to keep him. They really, really do.
So why not keep him? Good principals are hard to find and his
smoking pot just isn't reason enough to fire a good principal who is
doing his job, imo.
I think that given his position he could lead by example and enroll
in a rehabilitation program or something similar now that he's NOT
worried about keeping his job. (IE, he's not pulling a Senator and
trying to find justification for his behavior by bailing out to
rehab.)
That would irritate me. Why should he enroll in a rehabilitation program
for something that isn't a problem? Would someone enroll in rehab for
having a glass of wine? I see the two as equivalent. If he did it, I could
understand why he did -- to save his career -- but I think it would be
pointless. It would be wrong to perpetuate this myth that pot is somehow
evil and people need some rehab program to get over it.
-c
--
nimue
"Let your freak-flag fly, and if someone doesn't get you, move on."
Drew Barrymore
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 03:51:11 PM |
|
|
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469bb255$0$24781$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That would irritate me. Why should he enroll in a rehabilitation program
for something that isn't a problem?
To lead by example. He's a principle. If he wasn't in a position of youth
leadership in a system that teaches
against drug use, I would agree with you completely. But the idea of a
principle getting caught smoking pot in a public
park is generally unimaginable, so that indicates there -may- be a problem.
He's a public figure publically breaking the law in a public park. It's a
big park, and there is plenty of opportunity for privacy, so the fact that
the people who saw him just happened to be police means he -totally- failed
to keep it private. Who knows how many other people saw it?
Personally, I think if he wants to smoke pot in his house, that's...well,
not "fine" but it's his business. Were I to explain it to his students, I
would tell them that young people's brains are still developing and drug use
seems to hinder that development, so if you're a teenager drug use really
does make you stupid. That's why for some adults the same double standard
exists as does for driving, voting, sexual activity, child-rearing and
fighting wars. Meanwhile, you don't want your parents talking about their
sex life to the whole world; nor do they need to share their other adult
activities with your friends and everybody else. It's that simple.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 05:10:46 PM |
|
|
Gatt wrote:
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469bb255$0$24781$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
That would irritate me. Why should he enroll in a rehabilitation program
for something that isn't a problem?
To lead by example. He's a principle.
As they taught me in school, "remember, the princi-PAL is your pal".
It was a lie of course, they were never my pals. Quite the contrary.
But it did help to keep the spellings straight.
I offer the phrase to you at no charge. :-)
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 06:56:35 PM |
|
|
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6tidnUvclvlscQbbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
To lead by example. He's a principle.
As they taught me in school, "remember, the princi-PAL is your pal".
Awdammit! I probably misspelled it every time, too.
-c
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
14 Jul 2007 11:03:07 PM |
|
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2972-4699381B-774@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
-snip-
The line is clear for students who wish to participate in school
sports, fail a random drug test and you're off the team and required to
undergo drug counselling.
Do they subject student athletes to random drug tests? I'd like to see a
cite.
"The Policy applies to all students participating in interscholastic
athletics. Students wishing to play sports must sign a form consenting
to the testing and must obtain the written consent of their parents.
Athletes are tested at the beginning of the season for their sport. In
addition, once each week of the season the names of the athletes are
placed in a "pool" from which a student, with the supervision of two
adults, blindly draws the names of 10% of the athletes for random
testing. Those selected are notified and tested that same day, if possible."
Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 US 646 (1995)
I assume the district policy is roughly the same today as it was in 1995
when Acton was decided.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scratch" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 10:39:32 AM |
|
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2972-4699381B-774@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
`
School principal Aaron Miller is a drug-addict and is no example for the
children of Vernonia, Oregon or anywhere else.
Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
habitual user, much less an addict.
So your way of thinking is a little drunk driving is ok or a little
suicide never hurt anyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 01:29:20 PM |
|
|
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:7YKdnTnTlYvZ3QfbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@comcast.com...
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2972-4699381B-774@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
`
School principal Aaron Miller is a drug-addict and is no example for
the
children of Vernonia, Oregon or anywhere else.
Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
habitual user, much less an addict.
So your way of thinking is a little drunk driving is ok or a little
suicide never hurt anyone?
No, you total goob. He said weed isn't addictive. Sheesh.
Curt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 10:52:08 AM |
|
|
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:7YKdnTnTlYvZ3QfbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@comcast.com...
Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
habitual user, much less an addict.
So your way of thinking is a little drunk driving is ok or a little
suicide never hurt anyone?
Suicide =/= pot smoking. If it's a difficult distinction to grasp I'll
help you out: After doing one of them, you wake up the next day. Ask
around and see if you can find out which is which.
If he's not hurting anyone BE A GOOD CONSERVATIVE and leave him alone.
-c
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bo Raxo" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 02:31:05 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 8:39 am, Scratch <Larry_Tig...@lefites.aretraitors.nut>
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2972-4699381B-774@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
`
School principal Aaron Miller is a drug-addict and is no example for the
children of Vernonia, Oregon or anywhere else.
Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
habitual user, much less an addict.
So your way of thinking is a little drunk driving is ok or a little
suicide never hurt anyone?
Read my posts on the thread, I draw a difference between alcohol
impairment and marijuana. Having one beer and driving doesn't hurt,
if that's what you mean.
A little suicide? Now you're just ridiculous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Spread_Eagle=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 03:36:00 PM |
|
|
On Jul 14, 6:47 pm, "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
habitual user, much less an addict.
While it may not be as physically addicting as heroin or other
opiates, or even as physically addicting as tobacco is, marijuana
certainly is nevertheless quite psychologically addicting. If there
be gambling addicts and sex addicts and video game addicts and
overeating addicts there certainly be marijuana addicts.
Mr. Miller is an adult. That's why he's allowed behaviors that students are
not.
Sorry, but he isn't allowed illegal behaviors no matter how old he
is...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bo Raxo" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 04:07:48 PM |
|
|
"Spread Eagle®" <redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
news:1184531760.515627.117630@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 6:47 pm, "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
habitual user, much less an addict.
While it may not be as physically addicting as heroin or other
opiates, or even as physically addicting as tobacco is, marijuana
certainly is nevertheless quite psychologically addicting. If there
be gambling addicts and sex addicts and video game addicts and
overeating addicts there certainly be marijuana addicts.
When we talk about drug addicts, we're talking about physical addiction.
"Psychological addiction" is a layman's way of referring to what is really a
habit, and there aren't the physical mechanisms that bind a real addict to a
really addictive drug. I've never actually witnessed someone going through
heroin withdrawl, and maybe the idea I get from the movies is overblown, but
it's my impression that an opiate withdrawl is a whole lot different from a
daily pot smoker who goes cold turkey.
So trying to equate a pot smoker as a "drug addict" is just *****.
Habitual drug user, perhaps, but that is nothing like a heroin addict. And
your little semantic game of "psychological addiction" containing the a-word
is the weakest argument you could possibly make.
Mr. Miller is an adult. That's why he's allowed behaviors that students
are
not.
Sorry, but he isn't allowed illegal behaviors no matter how old he
is...
Sorry, but under that standard you would fire him for getting a parking
ticket. Because, like the marijuana possession, it is an infraction.
Somebody can make a mistake, and it isn't worth firing them from their job
for it. If you don't know that, I have to figure you've never had a job, or
at least not one that required anything more complicated than asking, "Do
you want fries with that?"
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Spread_Eagle=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 11:54:13 PM |
|
|
On Jul 15, 2:07 pm, "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
habitual user, much less an addict.
While it may not be as physically addicting as heroin or other
opiates, or even as physically addicting as tobacco is, marijuana
certainly is nevertheless quite psychologically addicting. If there
be gambling addicts and sex addicts and video game addicts and
overeating addicts there certainly be marijuana addicts.
When we talk about drug addicts, we're talking about physical addiction.
"Psychological addiction" is a layman's way of referring to what is reall=
y a
habit, and there aren't the physical mechanisms that bind a real addict t=
o a
really addictive drug.
That's not true at all. In fact, that's flat-out false.
A habit is the time you get up each day.
A habit is what you eat for breakfast most often.
A habit is the route you take to work each day.
A habit is the market you shop at.
Like that. Habits are something one does routinely.
Pleasure isn't involved. And it's not escapism. At best its comfort in
the familiarity.
Psychlogical addictions are altogether very different. They directly
stimulate the pleasure center of the brain. They give people an
escape from reality, from the drudgery of life, from reality. That's
why they become psychologically addictive. So people can escape.
And, yeppers, potheads fit the bill.
Mr. Miller is an adult. That's why he's allowed behaviors that studen=
ts
are
not.
Sorry, but he isn't allowed illegal behaviors no matter how old he
Sorry, but under that standard you would fire him for getting a parking
ticket. Because, like the marijuana possession, it is an infraction.
Somebody can make a mistake, and it isn't worth firing them from their job
for it. If you don't know that, I have to figure you've never had a job,=
or
at least not one that required anything more complicated than asking, "Do
you want fries with that?"
Sorry, but I never said fire him. Maybe somebody else said that but
not me. I say it's up to the good citizens of Vernonia. They get to
decide what they'll tolerate from their school principal.
Me, this is about what I've come to expect from the public education
system, and this'll just go down as reason #147 why my kids and my
grandkids have never and will never set foot in public school.
--
The Spreadster=AE
------------------------
It takes a school to bankrupt the village
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted Mittelstaedt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 04:28:12 AM |
|
|
"Spread Eagle®" <redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
news:1184561653.268951.200290@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Psychlogical addictions are altogether very different. They directly
stimulate the pleasure center of the brain. They give people an
escape from reality, from the drudgery of life, from reality. That's
why they become psychologically addictive. So people can escape.
And, yeppers, potheads fit the bill.
Using that definition ANYTHING could be psychologically addicting.
And one of the biggest psychologically addicting things there is out
there that fits that definition nicely is is aerobic exercise such as
running,
swimming, bicycling, etc.
Which has been shown to actually produce chemicals that stimulate
the brain. See "runners high" if you don't understand this.
Your problem is you are just using "psychologically addicting" as a
loaded phrase. So what if Marijuana can be psychologically addicting?
So can sex. So are you going to argue we should outlaw sex because
it can be psychologically addicting?
According to the DSM-IV, substance addiction is only present when
a minimum of 3 of the addiction criteria are met. Marijuana use has only
the potential for psychological addiction, just as sex does. And, potential
isn't good enough to outlaw something.
Sorry, but under that standard you would fire him for getting a parking
ticket. Because, like the marijuana possession, it is an infraction.
This is stupid also. See the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime
"...In everyday usage, a crime is understood as any act that violates a law"
The only newsgroup on this cross-post that has any business using the
term "crime" in it's legal sense is alt.true-crime. In the other groups by
definition crime is being used in it's everyday usage. So knock it off with
makign a big deal over felony and infraction, it does not have anything
to do with this thread.
Somebody can make a mistake, and it isn't worth firing them from their
job
for it. If you don't know that, I have to figure you've never had a job,
or
at least not one that required anything more complicated than asking, "Do
you want fries with that?"
Sorry, but I never said fire him. Maybe somebody else said that but
not me. I say it's up to the good citizens of Vernonia. They get to
decide what they'll tolerate from their school principal.
No it ISN'T up to the Good Citizens of Vernonia because the Vernonia
school district, like every other school district in Oregon, is mostly
funded by the state legislature. As a result of a number of initative
ballot measures passed by Oregon citizens that have moved control
of the schools to the State.
ALL of the state taxpayers are contributing to this guy's salary and should
have a say on this. Of course they probably won't get it, but they ought
to.
Me, this is about what I've come to expect from the public education
system, and this'll just go down as reason #147 why my kids and my
grandkids have never and will never set foot in public school.
Bah ha ha ha ha. Hiel Hitler! You can put your kids where you want but
if you start telling your kids how to raise their own kids you deserve a
good pop in the mouth.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 10:55:26 AM |
|
|
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$rdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Spread Eagle®" <redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
Me, this is about what I've come to expect from the public education
system, and this'll just go down as reason #147 why my kids and my
grandkids have never and will never set foot in public school.
I wonder what he'd do if his children decided to put their children in a
public school.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 11:09:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:55:26 -0700, "Gatt" <gatt@juggerFUbot.com>
wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$rdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Spread Eagle®" <redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
Me, this is about what I've come to expect from the public education
system, and this'll just go down as reason #147 why my kids and my
grandkids have never and will never set foot in public school.
I wonder what he'd do if his children decided to put their children in a
public school.
Try to bribe them out of it, one assumes.
Folks who claim to have Money also oftimes claim to exert Control over
their lives and those of succeeding generations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scratch" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 11:21:54 AM |
|
|
Don Homuth wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:55:26 -0700, "Gatt" <gatt@juggerFUbot.com>
wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$rdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Spread Eagle®" <redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
Me, this is about what I've come to expect from the public education
system, and this'll just go down as reason #147 why my kids and my
grandkids have never and will never set foot in public school.
I wonder what he'd do if his children decided to put their children in a
public school.
Try to bribe them out of it, one assumes.
Pretty obvious from your posts that your not a parent or you would know
the difference between a bribe and what is called loving parental
guidance. But then, I have come to expect that from a politician that
figures a 90% loss is a good thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 12:04:53 PM |
|
|
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:Ut2dnRBF5dkMAQbbnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@comcast.com...
I wonder what he'd do if his children decided to put their children in a
public school.
Try to bribe them out of it, one assumes.
Pretty obvious from your posts that your not a parent or you would know
the difference between a bribe and what is called loving parental
guidance.
My statement was, I wonder what Scratch would do if his children decided to
put their children into a public school. Not what form of "loving parental
guidance" (the children are adults, no?) Scratch would use to try to prevent
them from doing such a thing. It's just that when you say "my grandkids
will never set foot in a public school..." it begs the question: Says who,
and what if the parents decide otherwise?
-c
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 11:36:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:21:54 -0700, Scratch
<Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:55:26 -0700, "Gatt" <gatt@juggerFUbot.com>
wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$rdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Spread Eagle®" <redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
Me, this is about what I've come to expect from the public education
system, and this'll just go down as reason #147 why my kids and my
grandkids have never and will never set foot in public school.
I wonder what he'd do if his children decided to put their children in a
public school.
Try to bribe them out of it, one assumes.
Pretty obvious from your posts that your not a parent or you would know
the difference between a bribe and what is called loving parental
guidance.
Nothing is the least bit obvious.
Loving Parents bring their children up to make independent decisions
on matters relating to their own families. They don't try to buy them
off on matters that they really ought not to control.
But I have yet to see anyone with more than a dime to dangle in front
of their children who will Not try to control them with it.
It's a pernicious practice, though.
But then, I have come to expect that from a politician that
figures a 90% loss is a good thing.
I have come to expect from you nothing but non-germane comments of a
Wingnut variety.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 06:11:39 PM |
|
|
Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
But I have yet to see anyone with more than a dime to dangle in front
of their children who will Not try to control them with it.
Saaay Whhaaat?!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Spread_Eagle_=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 08:36:59 AM |
|
|
On Jul 16, 9:36 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:21:54 -0700, Scratch
<Larry_Tig...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:55:26 -0700, "Gatt" <g...@juggerFUbot.com>
wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$rdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Spread Eagle=AE" <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
Me, this is about what I've come to expect from the public education
system, and this'll just go down as reason #147 why my kids and my
grandkids have never and will never set foot in public school.
I wonder what he'd do if his children decided to put their children i=
n a
public school.
Try to bribe them out of it, one assumes.
Pretty obvious from your posts that your not a parent or you would know
the difference between a bribe and what is called loving parental
guidance.
Nothing is the least bit obvious.
Loving Parents bring their children up to make independent decisions
on matters relating to their own families. They don't try to buy them
off on matters that they really ought not to control.
But I have yet to see anyone with more than a dime to dangle in front
of their children who will Not try to control them with it.
It's a pernicious practice, though.
But then, I have come to expect that from a politician that
figures a 90% loss is a good thing.
I have come to expect from you nothing but non-germane comments of a
Wingnut variety.
Allow me to interpolate those remarks. Homo doesn't have kids, and is
once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he knows
nothing.
--
The Spreadster=AE
------------------------
It takes a school to bankrupt the village
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 09:18:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:36:59 -0700, Spread Eagle ®
<redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:36 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
I have come to expect from you nothing but non-germane comments of a
Wingnut variety.
Allow me to interpolate those remarks.
Wingnuts and Libertoonians seem always to Know what someone else means
really.
Homo doesn't have kids,
Not something about which you have Any actual knowledge.
and is once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he knows
nothing.
Deal with the substantive remarks or add some more Personal invective.
One way you might contribute something and the other way you'll
continue to be entertaining.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spread Eagle®" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
18 Jul 2007 11:42:59 AM |
|
|
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:hqjp931fa8jva2c905o22en9go3q5ndci2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:36:59 -0700, Spread Eagle ®
<redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:36 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
I have come to expect from you nothing but non-germane comments of a
Wingnut variety.
Allow me to interpolate those remarks.
Wingnuts and Libertoonians seem always to Know what someone else means
really.
Homo doesn't have kids,
Not something about which you have Any actual knowledge.
and is once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he
knows
nothing.
Deal with the substantive remarks or add some more Personal invective.
One way you might contribute something and the other way you'll
continue to be entertaining.
YOU ARE the one who said I would "bribe" my children to send my
grandchildren to private school. At that point it became painfully obvious
that you are barren, but not at all above opining and commenting about
things about which you know absolutely nothing. But we already knew that
you.
--
The Spreadster®
------------------------
It takes a school to bankrupt the village
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scratch" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
18 Jul 2007 12:52:52 PM |
|
|
Spread Eagle® wrote:
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:hqjp931fa8jva2c905o22en9go3q5ndci2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:36:59 -0700, Spread Eagle ®
<redsky@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:36 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
I have come to expect from you nothing but non-germane comments of a
Wingnut variety.
Allow me to interpolate those remarks.
Wingnuts and Libertoonians seem always to Know what someone else means
really.
Homo doesn't have kids,
Not something about which you have Any actual knowledge.
and is once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he
knows
nothing.
Deal with the substantive remarks or add some more Personal invective.
One way you might contribute something and the other way you'll
continue to be entertaining.
YOU ARE the one who said I would "bribe" my children to send my
grandchildren to private school. At that point it became painfully obvious
that you are barren, but not at all above opining and commenting about
things about which you know absolutely nothing. But we already knew that
you.
Probably just as well he is sterile. I would feel for the child with
honu being a role model and showing him there is no God, dead is just
dead and nothing is all that important in life to get all het up about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
19 Jul 2007 10:37:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:52:52 -0700, Scratch
<Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
I would feel for the child
Try not to do that much, unless you're planning on entering the
ministry with a specialty in Youth Work.
It's generally frowned upon any more.
...with honu being a role model and showing him there is no God...
(I remind you yet again that there is someone on the amUsenet using
the nym "honu." It is not me, though.)
That, however, deserves a few minutes of discussion.
I've never suggested there is No god. Mankind creates gods all over
the landscape, for various sorts of purposes, and throughout History
has managed to do so in large part as a rationale for considerable
violence. Clearly there are dozens, probably hundreds of gods. They
come and go as they are needed. Some last longer than others -- which
is a testament to good marketing and some historical religious
cleansing of non-believers within pretty much all organized
superstitions that have lasted any length of time.
The part about a god I don't buy is that You have one in your hip
pocket, and/or that Your take on such a god is the One, True and
Utterly Correct way.
It's not.
In addition to which, if You are an example of the outcome of
worshiping Your deity du jour, with the promise that if one does so
one can thereafter spend all of Eternity with you and your ilk, thanks
all the same. I'll pass on that offer.
You've been Hosed, Scratch. You were promised, no less, a Peace that
will Pass All Understanding by virtue of your preferred superstition.
It doesn't seem to work for you. Rather than comfort you, it seems
all it's really done is provide you with a bludgeon with which to
annoy and harass other folks instead.
Which is all very nice, but really -- you Can get to the same place
with a lot less bother. You don't need a god or a superstition to be
a complete jerk. Looks like you were born to that.
But as to the existence of a god or several or a bunch of them -- I've
taken a longish look, and have concluded that the best stance is not
to be an Atheist (declare there is No god) or a superstitionist
(declare that there Is some sort of god) or pick and choose from any
of the various flavors of gods that exist, even within specific
religious sects.
Because after looking for the Outcomes of such a superstious belief,
it's quite clear that It Doesn't Really Matter much, if at all. I
know perfectly nice folks who are devout believers and who treat their
fellow human beings in ways that are morally upright and generally
humane, and they derive from all the different superstitions out
there.
As a general rule, they hew to their own and don't wander around like
some latter-day Torquemada by Demanding that everyone hew to Their
form of orthodox belief.
As I said -- thanks all the same, but I'll pass on that one.
Believe or don't believe, as You choose and for Your own purposes.
Nothing that you are or state heron suggests any particular advantage
to Your belief set for anyone other than You and, should you demand
it, Yours.
Others are properly indifferent to Your specific orthodoxy. They can
and do handle such things just fine on their own.
Children can be taught to see that, and should be.
Children ought Not to be taught that Your way is the one and only True
Faith.
As for your demand that Your religion ought to dominate everything,
including gubmint, you might consider this attribution:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it,
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of a civil power,
‘tis a sign, I apprehend of its being a bad one." (Benjamin Franklin)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
18 Jul 2007 03:52:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:52:52 -0700, Scratch
<Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
Spread Eagle® wrote:
YOU ARE the one who said I would "bribe" my children to send my
grandchildren to private school. At that point it became painfully obvious
that you are barren, but not at all above opining and commenting about
things about which you know absolutely nothing. But we already knew that
you.
Heh! This is the amUsenet, child. Given that you've already made
comments at considerable length based on No Knowledge about me, I have
the option of giving as good as I get -- and just a tad more.
Probably just as well he is sterile.
See there? Scratch does it too!
I would feel for the child with
honu being a role model and showing him there is no God, dead is just
dead and nothing is all that important in life to get all het up about.
Such a child would have one singular benefit -- a capacity to see
Things As They Are, not to invent a private superstition with which to
bludgeon others, that death is final, and that it's alwasy best to
Choose which things are worth getting het up about, rather than have
some ranting fool try to do it for you.
Which is, as it turned out, not a bad outcome at all!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 01:20:29 PM |
|
|
Spread Eagle ® wrote:
-snip-
Allow me to interpolate those remarks. Homo doesn't have kids, and is
once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he knows
nothing.
Whatever.
Only folks who have had cancer know how to treat it?
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 01:37:53 PM |
|
|
Allow me to interpolate those remarks. Homo doesn't have kids, and is
once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he knows
nothing.
Ah, man.
I haven't heard that argument since I got in the face of a couple of
pot-burnout liberals who were letting their accidental offspring play with a
car battery and a bucket of laundry bleach at a party several years ago.
(They weren't "letting him play" per se, but they their attempt to correct
him was simply "What have I told you about playing with the bleach? Please
don't play with that, honey...")
When I said "It doesn't seem to be working, and everybody else is too
hammered to babysit for you. Maybe you keep him under closer supervision
before he hurts himself--"
"YOU DON'T HAVE KIDS. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. DON'T TELL MY
HOW TO RAISE MINE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!!"
-c
Earlier he peed on the kitchen floor and so many people laughed at him that,
a few minutes after our exchange, he went and did it again. "Honey...what
have I told you about peeing--"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 03:24:07 PM |
|
|
"Gatt" <gatt@juggerFUbot.com> wrote:
Allow me to interpolate those remarks. Homo doesn't have kids, and
is once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he
knows nothing.
Ah, man.
I haven't heard that argument since I got in the face of a couple of
pot-burnout liberals who were letting their accidental offspring play
with a car battery and a bucket of laundry bleach at a party several
years ago. (They weren't "letting him play" per se, but they their
attempt to correct him was simply "What have I told you about playing
with the bleach? Please don't play with that, honey...")
When I said "It doesn't seem to be working, and everybody else is too
hammered to babysit for you. Maybe you keep him under closer
supervision before he hurts himself--"
"YOU DON'T HAVE KIDS. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. DON'T TELL
MY HOW TO RAISE MINE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!!"
-c
Earlier he peed on the kitchen floor and so many people laughed at him
that, a few minutes after our exchange, he went and did it again.
"Honey...what have I told you about peeing--"
There are some issues where you just had to BTDT. Pain is one example.
Raising children is another.
The folks in your example were Morons. Unfortunately Morons can and do
reproduce.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spread Eagle®" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
19 Jul 2007 12:25:39 PM |
|
|
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Hz9ni.5357$Gx5.4124@trndny02...
"Gatt" <gatt@juggerFUbot.com> wrote:
Allow me to interpolate those remarks. Homo doesn't have kids, and
is once again he's talking out his ***** on a subject about which he
knows nothing.
Ah, man.
I haven't heard that argument since I got in the face of a couple of
pot-burnout liberals who were letting their accidental offspring play
with a car battery and a bucket of laundry bleach at a party several
years ago. (They weren't "letting him play" per se, but they their
attempt to correct him was simply "What have I told you about playing
with the bleach? Please don't play with that, honey...")
When I said "It doesn't seem to be working, and everybody else is too
hammered to babysit for you. Maybe you keep him under closer
supervision before he hurts himself--"
"YOU DON'T HAVE KIDS. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. DON'T TELL
MY HOW TO RAISE MINE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!!"
-c
Earlier he peed on the kitchen floor and so many people laughed at him
that, a few minutes after our exchange, he went and did it again.
"Honey...what have I told you about peeing--"
There are some issues where you just had to BTDT. Pain is one example.
Raising children is another.
The folks in your example were Morons. Unfortunately Morons can and do
reproduce.
In my life's experience, and I've been both fortunate enough and unfortunate
enough to have lived a very full life, having and raising children is THE
ULTIMATE undertaking wherein one had to have BTDT in order to understand and
talk intelligently about the subject. Done right and done properly parenting
is BY FAR the most difficult thing one does in life. And, yeppers, sadly,
there are many who fall short.
A parent comes face-to-face with and sees just about right from the getgo
after becoming a parent that all of their preconceived notions about what
being a parent is all about were wrong, that in actuality it is nothing like
what they thought it was going to be like, and they realize how clueless
they were as non-parents, so they soon they learn to just smile and silently
nod politely when their childless friends offer up their unsolicited
opinions, ideas and suggestions, thinking to themselves "yeah, right,
whatever," something I learned almost 30 years ago. But Homo is such an
arrogant fool in his ignorance, on this and all other topics, that I
couldn't restrain myself.
--
The Spreadster®
------------------------
It takes a school to bankrupt the village
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
