They'll also be the most hurt when schools do re-open. Not even really debatable. Our county is giving us the choice to do distance learning or go to school. I plan on sending mine to school, but I'm having mixed thoughts because they really aren't committed to much in terms of actual prevention. Unfortunately we are supposed to decide by July 13th.
Interesting...Ft Bend ISD came out against the TEA statement yesterday: https://www.fortbendisd.com/site/de...B3E108&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=156609&PageID=1
True, the same households would be more at risk of serious health issues related to going back to school. That's definitely something to consider, and has to be weighed against the very real possibility (I would actually call it a near certainty, but I'll leave it open for debate) that not going to school is going to increase the achievement gap. I think most rational people understand that the only way to real change is to address the issues at the source. Not sure if there is any greater source of disparity than the achievement gap, and yet here we are faced with a decision that could cause us to go in the OPPOSITE direction. It's why you have entities like the American Academy of Pediatrics saying "the academic, physical and mental upsides associated with reopening outweigh the risks." Kids who are already behind are going to become more behind...possibly irreparably.
Double Edged Sword... 1. Risk my kids academically being left behind 2. Risk my kids dying from catching a virus 3. Risk my kids bringing the virus home and someone else in the family catching the virus and dying... T_Man
Who is talking about closing schools? What happens when Teachers start getting sick and can't teach? Just let kids go to school and teach themselves?
What happens to a child if he brings covid home to a family member and they die... That kid will be tarnished for life... Also good questions about the teachers and what about their family as well... T_Man
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/...y-trump-defame-the-dead-in-her-tell-all-book/ “Too Much and Never Enough”: Did Mary Trump Defame The Dead In Her Tell-All Book? There has been exhaustive coverage over the latest tell-all book targeting President Donald Trump. Mary Trump’s book, “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” slams her uncle for a series of horrible acts and a lifetime of deceit. However, one allegation has drawn much attention and raises a related issue repeatedly discussed on this blog: Trump allegedly used a friend as a surrogate to take his college entrance test in order to secure a place at the elite Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. The problem is that this allegation appears to be untrue if the widow of the named individual is telling the truth. That raises the issue of “defaming the dead” and a common law doctrine that I have spent many years criticizing as unfair and harmful. According to Mary Trump, Trump’s friend Joe Shapiro took the SAT for him: The problem with this account is that Shapiro, who died of cancer in 1999, met Trump at the University of Pennsylvania, which (if true) would make it a bit difficult for him to have cheated on the test for him. His widow, former tennis champion Pam Shriver, was outraged by the allegation against her late husband who she said was known as a person of the highest integrity. Unless she is lying (which I have no reason to believe), that brings us to the torts question. Such an act would dishonest and has recently been prosecuted as a criminal matter in the infamous college bribery scandal which involved fraudulent test taking. If made falsely, it can be a matter of defamation. Criminal conduct has long been recognized as a per se category of slander under common law torts as well as such categories as moral turpitude and unchastity or impugning professional reputation. These per se categories are often referenced even in states that have removed the distinction between libel and slander. This is an allegation of criminal and unethical conduct. The problem is that Joe Shapiro is dead. As we have previously discussed with regard to an infamous column by the Toronto Star, the common law rule is that “you cannot defame the dead,” which of course means in practical terms that you can defame the dead. Once again, I have long been a critic of that rule, here. Publishers and movie producers often wait for figures to die to have full license to defame them with no recourse to the family. As I said in 2007: The current controversy highlights the unfairness and harm caused by this common law rule. Most of us were raised to protect our family names and reputations. Indeed, my father rarely made commands or demands for our future but he made clear that our primary obligation to him was to pass along our family name in as good or better shape than we received it. That does not mean that we are to avoid controversy but most of us spend our lives avoiding allegations of dishonestly, let alone criminal conduct. Yet, as soon as you die, anyone has total license to smear your reputation. As discussed in the earlier columns, such false portrayals are often the lasting impression of people from popular books or movies. This would seem an easy case of defamation. If Pam Shriver is telling the truth, there was no chance that this could have happened and Mary Trump could have easily confirmed that fact. The fact that neither she nor the publisher (Simon and Schuster) took the time to confirm that story is telling. This may not have been flagged for fact checking because it did not matter if it was true or not. Shapiro is dead so they knew that they had total license for libel. What is libelous for the living is non-libelous for the dead. All Shriver can do is object and try to set the record right (as the alleged defamer collects royalties on a false account): “But obviously Joe’s not here to defend himself and say what happened, but I just want to recollect what he told me about where he met Mr. Trump. And I want to thank all of Joe’s close friends and his sister Beth for our talks in the past 24 hours about what an upstanding, outstanding man Joe Shapiro was.” I would love to see another challenge to this common law rule, but it comes at the risk of an effort to sanction the filing as challenging established law. However, this is the creation of the courts and, while it could be changed by legislation, it should be reconsidered by the courts as inimical to the values underlying defamation law. The doctrine actually encourages the use of the dead to sensational depictions and allegations because they are treated as a “free pass” for possible litigation. The common defamation of the dead shows how the lack of a meaningful sanctions can fuel harmful conduct. The problem is that the allegation of fraudulent conduct involved two people and one is very much alive: President Trump. He could conceivable sue over this allegation. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. He would have to prove that his niece had “actual malice” where she had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false. The failure to confirm these facts of when the two men first met would be a compelling claim despite the high burden created by the Supreme Court. This is why the story is so important for reforming this rule. If President Trump were to sue, Shriver could join in the action and separately challenge the common law rule. We could then finally have a substantive debate over the rule that you cannot defame the dead. The problem is that, under the current rule, there is “never too much” when it comes to defaming the dead and there is “never enough” effort to confirm such facts without the deterrence of defamation lawsuits.
Have any of you ever seen kids constantly publicly fluff and defend their parents like this? I really haven't. I cannot think of a single case. I find it kind of creepy. I guess one of the Trump defenders could call it "amazing loyalty!" or "hugely love!" but it just seems abnormal, especially when constantly in the face of facts and numbers. It makes you wonder if it's learned, required behavior to stay in the family's (i.e. Trump's) good graces.
As dumb as Daddy. rad·i·cle /ˈradək(ə)l/ noun BOTANY the part of a plant embryo that develops into the primary root. ANATOMY a rootlike subdivision of a nerve or vein.
LOL. I don't know why anyone would read anything coming from a privileged silver spoon fed clone of his daddy anyway. Maybe he should have changed the title to How We Got Richer With Our White House Privileges.
Most people buying that book aren't reading it. Hell, this is how his last one became a best-seller: R.N.C. Spent Nearly $100,000 on Copies of Donald Trump Jr.’s Book “Triggered,” published Nov. 5, topped the best-seller list thanks in part to a big order from the Republican National Committee. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/books/donald-trump-jr-triggered-sales.html
