rkt: (angry sakuradolly)
Bronx 8th-graders boycott practice exam but teacher may get ax
Juan Gonzalez

Students at a South Bronx middle school have pulled off a stunning boycott against standardized testing.

More than 160 students in six different classes at Intermediate School 318 in the South Bronx - virtually the entire eighth grade - refused to take last Wednesday's three-hour practice exam for next month's statewide social studies test.

Instead, the students handed in blank exams.

Then they submitted signed petitions with a list of grievances to school Principal Maria Lopez and the Department of Education.

oh, yes, it goes on )
one of the biggest drives i had when i wanted to be a teacher wasn't to give back to the teachers who had done it right, but for all the ones who were doing. it. wrong.

(pump up the volume? yeah...)

and this guy? sure seems to have been doing it right. i mean, in a social studies class, his students organized for change? peacefully. without any actual chaos.
psh. silly man. he should never have taught them to believe. he should have taught them how to fill in circles with their number 2 pencils.

this response? seems to categorize the guy with those teachers who encourage peer abuse.
Not. The Same.
At. All.

and why is it so hard to believe they would have done so on their own? what does that say about the faith in the future?
should that not be the actual point of their education? and not just to grow up to to be worker drones?
i wonder, too, would the reaction have been the same if
the school had a different track record and/or population?

i feel for these kids, and for avella. and for all of us.
but i'm also proud for them.
rkt: (lesbian satan.verylisa)
Guess who's a gay?

nooo. i'm not talking about lance bass! (that's soooo old news, anyway...)

it's BILL CLINTON! (thanks to [livejournal.com profile] hardvice for the info; my life was not complete without this knowledge.)

just ask ann coulter.

see? )

isn't it amazing?
rkt: (image)
How much do you need to know about your spouse's previous sex life?

Published: Tuesday, 4-Jul-2006

Under a new ruling by the California Supreme Court, a person who has reason to believe he or she has HIV may be sued by sexual partners should they become infected. To knowingly pass on HIV is already illegal in California and people who do so may be sued for damages in state court, but the new ruling extends the state's view of when liability arises from the disease.

The chief issue before the court was whether an HIV-positive person who hadn't yet been tested for the virus could be held responsible, in a civil suit, for infecting a partner, and the answer is yes, at least in some circumstances.

text saved below cut for educational purposes )

The court has ruled that the husband must disclose when and how often he had sex with men, because it might indicate whether he should have known he was infected.


this article did give the most comprehensive information, and helped calm me down a wee bit, i'm still calling bullshit.

look, this whole situation sucks. if the husband spread hiv knowingly, he's an ass and then some. he'd be a case in which i wished i believed in karma. and i really don't justify willingly transmitting hiv to someone who doesn't know what they might be getting themselves into, which means, i'm not talking about "bug chaser" situations (wherein gay men try to get infected), of which i don't presently have commentary. but i'm not even sure if i'm *comfortable* with the prosecution of willful transmission to the unwilling. from the way things are looking, the guy had a negative hiv test. "high-risk" behaviour be damned, he had at least some reason to believe he wouldn't be transmitting hiv.

the government really just needs to stay the fuck out of my pants. THEY'RE MY PANTS!11!! they should stay out of yours, too. unless you want to let them in, but ONLY YOUR PANTS then. nobody else's. not your parents'. not your partners'. NOT MINE. and that's really, as far as i'm concerned, is what a lot of this is all about.

yes it really is..... )
let me finally clarify that i do not blame the woman if she is, in fact, the victim of an asshole here. again, her situation is sad and tragic. and if she infected her husband, that, too, is sad and tragic. my statements would remain the same if she were a sex worker and not his wife. but the government still needs to stay out of my pants.

[the case is john b. vs. superior court, S12824]

see also:


rkt: (image)
all in all, except for losing the original draft of this post by typing it offline and then restarting my computer without saving (yes, genius points all
around), and then lj not wanting to post this properly, it's been a super night. i brought home a new "toy" from the bar. this toy is a perfect travel companion which safe for use in public toilets, boats, buses, trains, airplanes, camping, hospitals, discos and schools.

this is the sort of coolness i've been waiting for. oh, if only you knew. seriously.

and not just so i can have a response to a [livejournal.com profile] feminist post within the next 3-7 months.

pixie, May or may Not be work safe )

i so want to iconize it. i may.

note:the above link also may or may not be worksafe

April 2017

2 345678
910 11 12131415


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2017 03:23 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios