I have two sons, both entering the workforce age (16) wherein they are not only interested in finding such a job, but are genuinely excited about the opportunity to work and earn money. As a point of fact, there is a pizza joint across the street from their high school, and both want to work there since it would be so easy of a commute.
Anyone would like to earn $100K/year for tossing pizza dough, but they understand the concept of market enterprise, and know that the services they provide aren’t worth a $15+/hr pay rate. They may not be the most experienced employees, with this being their first job, but I can tell you that they ARE in fact, “enthusiastic about working in a pizza shack for minimum wage…” — it beats NO work and NO wage, and provides a springboard from which they can move.
 February 2, 2015 at 12:39pm
I agree that one class doesn’t mean that all are poor. I believe the challenge comes in to determine when “thought-provoking” crosses the line to “indoctrination” – my son’s sociology class crosses the line frequently, but we didn’t know it until recently when we stared asking about the classroom discussions. In those discussions, the teacher pontificates about her liberal views and squelches honest dialog from any competing opinions. When asked about it, she says she is just teaching the students to “think in different avenues than they have before…”
If I were in the classroom, I’d have a clear understanding of when “education” crosses the line to “indoctrination” – however, often people with less life experience either don’t know or can’t respond appropriately. They are then forced to be in an environment where one view is taught and other views are repressed.
I’m not opposed to education, I just want an environment that is protected from such problems. Without that environment, I want to make sure the schools focus their attention on things that don’t become as questionable (like math, science, etc.) and which improve my childrens’ chances for future marketability in an increasingly competitive world.
 February 2, 2015 at 12:30pm
Genesis 6:1-2 (at closest) talks about interspecies relationships and offspring (angels procreating with humans). Correcting DNA abnormalities to bring them in alignment with God’s initial design is NOT making a new human species any more than skin-grafts to help a burn victim create new species.
Let’s try a different avenue – if you could fix your child’s genes to prevent a painful physical abnormality, would you do that rather than let them live a life of pain and disability? If not, how could you stand before a loving God and answer for your lack of action with the child he entrusted to your care? I imagine God condemning you for NOT using the intelligence to improve his childrens’ lives.
…that comes from a Christian father of two special-needs children. I’d make the changes any day, and do so KNOWING that God wants me to improve my sons’ lives as much as I possibly can.
 October 20, 2014 at 11:22am
It IS the same thing. The pastors are not saying “If you are gay, we won’t marry you.” (i.e. refusal to service a type of person). They are saying “If you want to be married to someone of the same sex, we won’t marry you” (refusal to offer a particular item, service, or product to ANYONE, regardless of who they are).
They aren’t limiting WHO they service. They are limiting WHAT they provide. In the same way that a deli that limits WHAT they provide (i.e. HAM) would do.
Your argument is invalid.
 May 14, 2014 at 4:27pm
A few key differences:
First, students don’t get ‘paid’ for their efforts, so being sponsored for such a trip is a key way of gaining additional insight.
Second, when the rule is “you can’t be sponsored by groups we don’t like or politically agree with” it is significantly different than “you can’t be sponsored by any group. Period.” If we are going to deny sponsorship, deny it from all. If we are going to allow it, allow it to all.
May 9, 2014 at 4:14pm
@Verycobaltviolet: I guess they are saying that in a slightly more subtle way than you are saying, “You can have any opinion or belief you want, as long as it is perfectly in line with my beliefs. If not, you are a jerk and you hate people.”
CrazyLeftView – I’m tolerant of everything that agrees with me perfectly, so I must be more tolerant than you (even though I attack those people I disagree with via personal attacks, and do my best to extinguish even respectable dialog in favor of silence).
April 16, 2014 at 4:04pm
You mean like when a Hispanic person shoots a black person, and the entire nation goes on a year-long tirade about it being a typical symptom of white racism (even though the shooter wasn’t white), and that whites are just looking for reasons to shoot blacks. Yea, I never see that either. Weird.
July 8, 2013 at 11:39am
I agree that giving respect is almost always an appropriate course of action, but I’d challenge your comment about us being a Republic, and thus, a society based on the rule of law. The fact is that the law was on the driver’s side. The police can, in fact, ask you to roll your window down further, but it’s your right to refuse this request (if you so desire) without being presumed guilty. It IS your legal right to ask if you are being detained, and it IS THEIR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to answer the question. Law was on the driver’s side, and the law was violated. That’s the entire point.
I agree that we should be more polite, but the fact that I’m NOT polite doesn’t give police the legal grounds to violate my rights anymore than I have the right to violate a police officer when he is rude to me.
April 1, 2013 at 12:37pm
I wish they had a “Like” button by your comment, so I could show my appreciation.
I get tired of those who have never experienced anything other than the US decrying how evil of a place this is. Having been to many other countries on many occasions, I’m always interested in their cultures and politics, but never interested enough to even consider a trade for what I have back home.
December 16, 2010 at 10:38am
Ummm…if nobody can speak for the group, then why is this guy speaking for the group? By his own words, he is calling himself a liar.
“Anyone who claims to speak for all of us is, quite frankly, a liar.” and then such statements as “We do not object to this – in fact, it pleases us.”
Additionally, their goal is to attack those who don’t support wikileaks? Is that true? Yet they say they honor the 1st Amendment? I guess it’s one of those “Free Speech to anyone who agrees with me – attacks to those who don’t” sort of things. Maybe I’m missing something…I haven’t heard much about them besides this article.
I thought the very same thing. How can a non-group without a spokesman have a spokesman? Who authorized the author of this letter to speak for a group that doesn't exist?
Which proves these kids watch too many movies. Some will come to their senses when they learn, un-like in the movies, that bullets kill, that there are not nine lives, and pooling blood is sticky, gooey, and a bitch to wash away completely.
Agreed, It takes a lot of courage and honor to be "Anonymous"
Very good point, and I might add that hackers by their very nature have no respect for private property which is one of our Republics founding principles.. Their non leader leader is calling for Revolution, but what type? From what I have gathered, many of these "revolutionaries" are nothing more than anarchists who want to destroy capitalism because it promotes true liberty,and liberty promotes self reliance, which they appear to be scared of
I now speak for everyone I am "Alias" Now get back to work, nothing to see here.
I second that.
If you stand - then be counted. To hide is not freedom.
I was a little confused at this letter, as well. It seemed suspicious that Anonymous contradicted themselves. I had to read this letter many times, and each time, I kept thinking about the bible story where Jesus exorcizes a demon out of a man. The demon calls himself “Legion, because we are many.” I also feel uncomfortable with them using the quote “citizens of Earth.” Freedom of speech is something I hold close to my heart. I just worry about what kind of “knight in shining armor” runs out there to fight for it on my behalf, especially when they hide behind a pseudonym.
He isn't Anonymous, I am! He isn't Spartacus, I am! No wait a minute who am I??
@Baron.....the "citizens of the earth" comment bothers me too.
this part also intrigues me:
"Furthermore, the world we live in today is the result of numerous revolutions that have occurred throughout human history – many of them being positive, and resulting in advancements for all of humanity."
"If you stand – then be counted. To hide is not freedom."
It's funny because you all hide behind pseudonyms here.
If nobody speaks for Anonymous, then who is Glenn supposed to contact for further info as the last paragraph states?
December 16, 2010 at 10:30am
He DID get captured by his enemy. Unfortunately, his enemy is the US.
…then again, maybe that’s more of a “fortunately” for him in this case, since most other countries would have treated him much worse.
On an unrelated side note, (1) IQ tests don’t rate “wisdom”. There are plenty of people with high IQ’s who couldn’t figure out how to balance their own budget, let alone their own life. The fact that someone here *says* they have an above average IQ isn’t impressive. (2) I can say I have an IQ of 173. That means basically the same thing that it meant when IQ was first brought up: Either I think I’m smarter than him and am trying to use my IQ score to intimidate rather than engage in rational debate, or I’m a liar.
December 15, 2010 at 5:25pm
“…police don’t yet know if the cases are linked, or if they have any connection to cases in British Columbia, where seven feet have washed ashore in the past four years…”
Really??! Police have no clue if nine disembodied feed washing up to the same basic shore line is connected? I didn’t think it was that difficult of a chore, connecting those dots. What idiot would think that there may NOT be a connection? How often do we have feet floating up at other shores?
With deductive powers like that, I’m assuming that the authorities will never be able to get to the bottom of it.
December 15, 2010 at 5:17pm
There are those that would have you believe that 5-10% of the population is gay. In actual studies, only one qualified study was found to have as much as 5%, and it wasn’t “repeatable”.
The vast majority of statistically ‘sound’ studies find the numbers to be closer to 2-3%.