For all those calling me a nasty person.... Understand that I was calling out Obama saying that he could not offer a pardon to Snowden. Obviously, Obama is an esteemed professor of our Constitution, who has never read the document. And, based on his performance over the past 8 years has totally ignored the document.
With regard to Snowden. If he was doing this because he is a patriot, he should come home and defend his actions. During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsburg released classified material, and stayed to defend his actions. He stood trial for his crimes - which carried a sentence of 115 years in prison - the charges were ultimately dismissed.
Actually, I am describing the classic definition of a reporter's (Journalist) job. Going beyond the facts is defined as editorializing, commentary, or opinion. What we have on the "News" Networks (Fox, CNN, etc.) are individuals (Wolf Blitzter; Giraldo; Megan Kelly) who claim to be reporting, but are in fact skewing the facts to present a personal point of view. If you are old enough to have seen the news broadcasters of 50 or 60 years ago, you would know the difference.
Christian Amanpour is a real Journalist who only injects personal opinion when asked. Don Lemon says he is a news reporter but is biased, and his presentation of facts are skewed to his personal beliefs.
A Journalist collects and presents facts, they are not supposed to inject personal thoughts. Writing that someone is crazy because they believe that the earth is flat is not the appropriate action of a Journalist. The Journalist may present facts on both sides of the issue. It's up to the reader of the article to determine which side is correct based on the information in the article.
I listened to his news conference. He never asked Russia to hack into Hillary's e-mails. What he requested was that if Russia had found the 30,000 missing e-mails to turn these over to the FBI. Hillary and her co-conspirator (the President) are trying to move the discussion away from the DNC violation of our federal election regulations.
Finally!!!! After 7 years, I can actually agree that President Obama is taking a reasonable action on the "No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act". He should veto the bill. ISPs and the carriers have failed to make good on their promises. The US should be leading the world on providing inexpensive broadband telecommunication services.
In the 1970s, the U.S. Congress mandated that all Federal Agencies must create a methodology for compliance with EPA regulations. In the late 1980s, the FCC devised a protocol for determining how to measure the effects of exposure to RF emissions. This was based on how much RF energy it would take to damage one square centimeter of human tissue, over a continuous period of time, of less than 60 seconds. Effectively, there is no way to set a standard for damage based on exposure for a few seconds every "X" seconds over "X" period at "X" power level.
What I have personally observed is someone grabbing an antenna attached to a mobile transmitter at 450 MHz, with 40 watts. Doing this for less than 2 seconds, and receiving a burn.
Cell phones generally transmit at less than 1/4 watt (normally), and even less in a standby mode. They don't do a continuous transmit. Mostly, they are receiving.
The Bezerkeley requirement is bullshit based on scientific bullshit.
Why is no one asking if AT&T is really delivering Gigabit service? More than likely, the customer is not receiving Internet downloads of more than 50 megabits per second. That's what I receive via my cable connection. And, I don't have any problems watching a streaming video from Amazon, Netflix, or You Tube.
I agree with your statement. Just providing an explanation of why the student was disciplined.
Fortunately, the teacher was also fired for breaking the rules. A teacher should never bully a student. It's not a good way to gain the respect of the rest of the students in the class. And, it's an adult telling the children that bullying is OK.
No... I'm not a zero tolerance, or follow the rules at all costs. Just trying to explain why the school felt compelled to punish the child. What I do believe is that and 11 year old child should not be carrying a cell phone. If they are carrying a phone it should be voice only, not texting, pictures or games. And, it should be set to dial only two numbers - home, or 911.
The rules were clear. Cell phone use in the classroom by anyone was prohibited.
Also, Bullying was prohibited, and for that, the teacher was fired.
Yes... because the student should not have been using the cellphone. The student should have gone to the front office, or to her parents, and reported the incident.
If a group of people stops an attacker from raping someone, and decides to hang the attacker, the group members can all be charged with a crime. The group after stopping the attack should hold the attacker for police.
Granted,there is no right to expect privacy in a classroom setting in a public school. What is not being considered, is that the school set in place a regulation (which applies to teachers and staff, as well as the pupils)to prohibit use of cellphones for the express purpose of minimizing the number of distractions which keeps the school from fulfilling its primary mission - making certain that students get the full benefit of an education.
Cellphone use was prohibited because it can be, and is, a significant distraction. The punishment for the student should stand. However, the actions of the student, did expose the poor behavior and teaching skills of the teacher,