Huffington

Saw an article on Huffington Post today.  It was talking about whether or not teachers should be banned from using social networking sites like Facebook.  Apparently the teachers are getting together & talking about all those little beasties they have to deal with all day.  This also came up on Soda head & I responded:

No, they shouldn't be banned.  If they're found to be making libelous/slanderous statements then they can be sued.  If not the 1st Amendment applies to them as well as anyone's kids.  If you're kids are bratty & being talked, then it's their own doing. If parents don't like it, then they can do something to corral their kids.  When I was in school I was perfectly aware of which teachers liked me & which didn't, this just makes it a little more clear.  Teachers are allowed to voice their opinions & are not required to like every little "angel" that goes through their classroom.

It's amazing in this country of "freedom", when something comes along we don't like, how quick we are to want to censor, edit or outright ban it.  How very Unamerican, but typical, so maybe it is American.

We have taken so much away from teachers as it is, why not take a little bit more.  We have edited how & what they teach.  We have told them to teach to the test.  We barely pay them in most states, yet some political pundits act teachers are gold-diggers.   Their retirements & unions have been threatened.  My only ? is, why in the world would anyone want to be a teacher?

Teachers, Police Officers, Firefighters & other municipal workers are usually employed by the city/county & tend to be severely underpaid. Can you can imagine being a police officer in NYC trying to survive on 60K?  A city where a 90 square foot apartment can rent for $750.  Just imagine if he/she has kids.  Rent alone for a 250 square foot, one bedroom apartment could easily eat up $18,000. Add to that #200 - $500 in utilities.  Then there goes over a third of their salary.  That doesn't include anything like taxes, insurance or transportation.  Oh & by the way, that 60K is for an officer who's been at the job a while, starting pay is much lower.

Back to the point, teachers should not be banished from social networking sites, just because they talk about your kids.  Nor should they be fired because of talking about your kids or for just otherwise being human.  Teachers are not & are not required to be saints.  They can talk about people.  They can have a beer.  They can be real people with lives outside of teaching society's little monsters.

As for you with little monsters, most cities have leash laws.

.

Sodahead ?

I go to Sodahead.com & answer ?'s from time to time & today's ? for me was, "Should Match.com screen for criminals?"  My answer:

 An adult person's safety is first & foremost their own responsibility. What makes a criminal? Is it that they've had a speeding ticket? They pissed in a college fountain? They shop-lifted? They got busted with a public intoxication citation? Or are we talking about violent offenses? Then are we talking about all violent offences or will we limit it too things like domestic battery & sexual assault, while leaving out barroom brawls? There are a lot of factors to be addressed before an online dating service can be held responsible for screening its applicants' criminal histories. Would you like to have their credit checked as well? To end this, there are a ton of sites online that will do background searches. If a person is in a position to be concerned about someone else's background (like dating a total stranger they met through Match.com), then they might want to do a background search & find out for themselves. That is if they can get a real name out of the person they're trying to hook up with.

I truly believe safety is mostly a personal  issue.   It pisses me off that an adult has to wear a seat-belt or a helmet on a motorcycle.  If they get killed it was their own doing & to hell with the do-gooders trying to save them.  It's called Darwinism.  All these do-gooders are really concerned about are themselves any way.  What will I do if so & so dies because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt?  Damn Nags.

Again I ask whose definition of criminal shall we use?  I bet the majority of us all have had at least one run in with the law.  If all of those people who have had run-ins couldn't be on match.com, then who would be left?  A few boring, plain vanillia, socially defunct people who have never had any fun in their lives.  Yeah, that sounds like a fun date.

As for the background search, I normally oppose these things, but then again I oppose meeting people to date online as well.  Call me old-fashioned (HA!), but I think you should get to know people face to face, most likely at their place after your first bout of sex.  Hey, it may've been closing time, but that didn't mean you had to go home, at least not your home.  Background searches have their place, like for employers & I guess nowadays for people who use online dating services.

Match.com shouldn't be held responsible for your safety or screening for criminals.  Then again Match.com shouldn't be used for dating, thats what bars, churches, street corners & Craigs List are for, silly.