[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - Actually, I consider How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents to be much better and better literature for young adults. I consider The House on Mango Street to be far better literature. The Rivera book is stark and provoking, but not really accessible for younger people because of the disjointed narrative.[/quote]

All of which would be reasonable. However, is that your actual objection, or is it all the "fargin dumbbutts" in it?

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - As for harm, which seems to be the one drum you have[/quote]

Because it's the one drum that there is- if something causes no harm, what argument is there for preventing it? "Appropriate" and "Inappropriate" are essentially meaningless- equating to "My tribe likes this" and "My tribe doesn't like that".

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - that is for the parents to decide[/quote]

Except the parents don't get to decide the curriculum. Can you picture what schools would have left to teach if everything deemed objectionable to a significant fraction of parents were cut? Adios any mention of evolution. Goodbye Huck Finn. Expect history classes to be really short.

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - Maybe you missed the question.[/quote]

Why do you get an 11-13 year old to try and read anything? I haven't heard y'all say it's a particularly poor work of literature, or one beyond the comprehension of middle-schoolers. Apparently you'd consider it a very good work...except that you object to that one passage.

My point is, there's no particular harm done to the kids in having them read that, so if the book is fine otherwise, there's no cause to delay.

[quote][b]nowheregirl[/b] - Not that I've never said one, but it takes alot to make me mad enough to do so[/quote]

We probably approach profanity from different directions- for me, it's relatively inoffensive because it's rarely more than a general expression of disgruntlement, frustration, or annoyance. Short puff of steam, done, over.

Expressing true anger for me when I'm mad enough to do it verbally tends to involve carefully-crafted sentences spoken with much more forethought, specificity, and insight into the reaction it will have on the listener. A few shouter profanities are much, much, kinder and gentler.

I think 11-13 year olds would be no more scarred by the word you substituted "fargin" for as they would the word "fargin".

When talking about keeping "bad" language away from children, I have yet to actually hear someone come up with the supposed harm that's being done to the kids by hearing/reading it. Are you terrified that the child who has somehow managed to avoid those words until that age will now have additional choices to use when being impolite?

[quote][b]matt1141a[/b] - Look at the looney left in CA who have closed or rejected cheap natural gas in exchange for solar and wind which is not profitable and has caused electricity rates to sky rocket.[/quote]

Bear in mind they're trying to figure out what's best fifteen or twenty years or more down the line.

Sure, natural gas is cheap...now. In April of 2012 the price averaged $3.15 per thousand cubic feet. In July of '08, it was $13.06. In October 2006 it was 5.62. In November 205 it was $12.11. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035us3m.htm

Solar might be somewhat more costly than natural gas right now, but it's a hedge against the price of other commodities spiking. And since no one in this state can totally predict what the federal government will do, one carbon emission law and the price of both coal and natural gas power zips right up.

[quote][b]Save our Republic[/b] - I wish I were able to KEEP more of my earnings![/quote]

If your tax rates were lower but your earnings dropped so your net income was less, would you be happy or sad about that?

[quote][b]jtsim[/b] - If a person is an Obama supporter and didn't vote for him does that make that person an unavid supporter?[/quote]

Pretty much. That'd account for the "Yeah, I'd kinda lean Obama but it's raining today so I didn't vote" crowd.

[quote][b]jtsim[/b] - I would think that only an avid supporter would have voted for him in both elections. I can understand being fooled once but not twice. [/quote]

Well, I voted for McCain the first go-round, and Obama the second. Because it seemed like the Republican party took several steps to the right, and Obama actually did wind up being close to a moderate. Admittedly, I probably went a bit more leftward in the interval as well.

I'll keep my skull-meat inside my head for now.

[quote][b]keepitsimple[/b] - It's a McDonalds...the last step above unemployement.[/quote]

And that's why Libertarianism doesn't work. Because the premise that employers and employees should be completely free to negotiate terms of employment fails to account for people who are faced with the choice of that job or no job, and employers who will gleefully pay as little as possible...which in the case of company towns, often wound up being a net negative wage when you counted debt owed to the company.

Voting for Obama has relatively little to do with being an avid Obama supporter. It just requires weighing the platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties and deciding the Democrats are less bad.

Email snooping versus theocratic misogyny. Prying for a defensible purpose versus unrestrained corporate hegemony.

[quote][b]King Minos[/b] - As for sexual identity, feelings, behavior, etc., no public or private institution can settle this "human" issue. sorry [/quote]

Alright, this is the part of your argument that's confusing me most- the "liberal" view on the issue is that matters of sexual and gender identity are basically variable and vary all over the place between individuals. The liberal response is basically to shrug about that and say "Hey, whatever floats your boat if you're consenting adults.", then suggest that the same standards of equality, legal rights, etc, should apply regardless of identity.

I don't think anyone on the left is trying to "settle" any issue of sexual identity, just settle how people with any identity are treated.

The Church posits that there's one set of sexual identity and relations- not just what but how- is in accordance with "natural law", and therefore right, while divergence from that is some sort of error or wrong. The left finds that view objectionable.

The plastic packaging might be the first clue to the alert consumer that the food's been processed a bit more than homemade.

Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go...

[quote][b]Chief SS[/b] - What is wrong with having someone to prove that they are a legitimate and LEGAL resident of the United States????[/quote]

Just anecdotal, but I can remember as a kid hearing about how, in the Soviet Union, citizens would routinely be asked for their papers when travelling, on the street, or wherever.

I personally interpreted that to be a sign the commies were an oppressive tyranny, and that any state that felt it had to keep that tight a control over the folks in its borders was somehow fundamentally flawed.

[quote][b]King Minos[/b] - The institutional sanctions that are so decried are voluntary in the sense they would only be applied to people who choose to be church members[/quote]

Does the Church not take a vocal position on matters of law? Abortion, gay marriage, etc? It's hardly a matter of preaching to church members alone, while saying that anyone outside the church should be free to do as they wish- the organization actively tries to affect the behavior of non-members.

You seem to want the Catholic Church to be somehow outside the possibility of being condemned- and condemned on moral grounds, no less. No organization that takes a role in public life is immune to that, sorry.

Let's see...Chicago 2010 homicide rate, 15.2 per 100,000 population. Atlanta 2010 homicide rate, 17.7 per 100,000. (per the FBI data).

Looks like the gun control might be doing a little bit of good, eh?

Anyhow, overall, not a terrible city up there- good food, interesting architecture...good food.

@King Minos: What?

[quote][b]Save our Republic[/b] - Triage should be based on medical need, not age![/quote]

Triage is based on the medical needs of the total group needing medical care. Heck, it's possible to decide that the sickest people you could save won't get medical care because with the same amount of time and resources you could save the lives of more of the less critically injured or ill.

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - The breach of the peace can occur afterward when such children proceed to use this in the streets or when the parents come to have a conference with the offending teachers.[/quote]

Which is hardly immediate. Also, are you seriously suggesting that children encountering certain words is a threat to the peace?

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - The breach of the peace can occur afterward when such children proceed to use this in the streets or when the parents come to have a conference with the offending teachers.[/quote]

Which is hardly immediate. Also, are you seriously suggesting that children encountering certain words is a threat to the peace?

And while we're at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - The breach of the peace can occur afterward when such children proceed to use this in the streets or when the parents come to have a conference with the offending teachers.[/quote]

Which is hardly immediate. Also, are you seriously suggesting that children encountering certain words is a threat to the peace?

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - No teacher shall assign any reading that they could not legally read out loud in front of their students.[/quote]

Don't ignore a critical part of the statute (I've italicized it): "Without provocation, uses obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace."

You can calmly and serenely drop f-bombs galore. In particular, classroom reading isn't going to cause a riot. They could read the text out loud without violating the law. This is a variant on disturbing the peace- not a condemnation of the language in particular.

And that also ignores whether the law could pass Constitutional muster- North Carolina's anti-profanity statute got nixed by its own courts: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/state-s-anti-profanity-law-unconstitutio...

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] -

For example, thanks to Bart Simpson:

[/quote]

He's right. A language is, fundamentally, what people speak. Look at it this way: is the English we use now "proper", or are we speaking a horribly corrupted version of Old English, riddled with slang terms and foreign borrowings, and with dramatically dumbed-down grammar?

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - When language is in the modern day idiom, readers who are children can be expected to take on that language[/quote]

Show me the child who first learned to curse from a book? Usually the introduction comes elsewhere, no?

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - However, we have a fundamental disagreement, you and I, that begins and ends with what we consider parental rights. We aren't going to resolve that.[/quote]

Probably not, but consider it this way- parents do not have the absolute right to determine what their children see, because attempting to make that so would interfere with the rights of others to do as they please. You might not want your kid to see women in revealing garments, but the instant you let 'em out of the house, guess what...just to pick one example. Consider that your child may hear language of all sorts spoken in public as well.

While I'm sure the college wasn't tickled about the sexual orientation of the student, does that even enter into it:

"Grace University's code of conduct for its students is strict: No kissing, no prolonged hugs and certainly no premarital sex"

Would a student in an opposite-sex relationship there have had the same problems?

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - You have read it, right? You have also read the Rivera book as well, right? There is no language in Dante's book that would not be acceptable for a child to say. However, a series of f-bombs would be unacceptable for a child to say, don't you think?[/quote]

Comedy, yes. Rivera, no.

As for the f-bombs, it's hardly the end of the world if they do say them, isn't it? Are we trying to prevent the dread specter of possible occasional impoliteness?

Not to mention that there's a world of difference between reading a thing and doing a thing...otherwise every uncle in the world would have to get nervous when his nephews read Hamlet, no? To say nothing of Romeo and Juliet...