That's true enough, I suppose I just have no faith in either to be honorable.

Yeah, requiring that for the high school is even more ridiculous. It has to be based on some liability concern. Good luck with getting it changed.

That's true, I know a few that will do the equivalent but they're not as binding as an iep or 504. I also think it's helpful for parents to be aware of the public school standard just to be more informed for any conversations even if the school can simply say no

It's interesting in concept but in practice seems problematic democratically. I'm pretty sure the constitution mentions no religious tests for public office. Plus we shouldn't restrict who is allowed to participate in democracy, if anything we should expand it.

I know it's not the same but there is something funny about denouncing Nazis while also implying that a religion should be silenced if it was politically viable.

I think this slightly downplays the fact that Roberts and Kavanaugh are partisan hacks

It has a message if you look for it. It could be a message to the politically obstinate that it could happen in their community in an attempt to motivate people to take reforms seriously.

I don't know if wer even put forward new legislation after mass shootings anymore.

As you should, all kids deserve those same opportunities with as few barriers as possible.

Is the 1:1 chaperone a school policy or is it something that you agreed to during some type of meeting while discussing their disabilities?

Depending on your experience with the school so far, I would personally have a meeting to see if any accommodations or compromise could be made, if not I would seek advice from a lawyer that specialized in education or special education. This is largely based on growing up with a sibling with a disability and how my parents went about issues like this.

Unfortunately I don't know too much about private schools, but this would be open and shut at a public school.

As the other comment said it depends on the amount of federal funding, which isn't likely for most catholic schools. Unfortunately private schools have a don't have a great reputation when it comes to special education/accommodations.

For students with disabilities you would want to look at Section 504 and IDEA (individuals with disabilities education act). Epilepsy could be covered by either but if I remember correctly field trips would be covered by 504. The school might not be legally required to follow these acts but some strive to.

Does your child have an educational plan or a disability plan that would be an equivalent of an IEP or 504?

Besides contacting diocese these websites might have resources. I'd also check out websites for parents of children with disabilities.

www.ccse-maryland.org ncea.org

If you're having a discussion with the school I would recommend looking up some info on the psychological and social impacts of exclusion

Yup, people can apply that definition. But that does not negate the possibility of it being a form protest.

Agree with it or not, when people don't care about the other forms of protest, or actual school shootings, this protest seems to be gaining people's attention.

That or people misinterpret the studies or only read headlines.

Are you sure youre not mixing up the research that focused on CBD? It seems their research conflicts with your point.

I don't think thr Colorado Department of Transportation would make a statement like "There are many misconceptions about marijuana use, including rumors that it can’t impair your ability to drive or that it can actually make you a safer driver. Several scientific studies indicate that this is false" if their scientific studies said otherwise. https://www.codot.gov/safety/impaired-driving/druggeddriving/data

That makes sense. Thanks for sharing the information

Yeah and I agree with that, but the article mentions NJ as an alternative despite its system currently under review by their state courts.

I suppose what I was trying to say is that I commend that rep for pushing to change the laws but I'm confused why they didn't mention what the effective/acceptable alternative would be which appears to be raising the baseline for the in the system. Does this require a blood test?

The way it currently functions definitely isn't fair but there still needs to be some way to discourage people from driving impaired.

Less than year you're good with a Canadian license. Longer than a year you're supposed to get a state license but I'm not sure how often this is actually enforced.

From my understanding you do need to retake the tests but the US driving tests are genuinely quite easy and would probably take part of an afternoon for an experienced driver.

Legally you can lease a car with an international license. Your works HR might be able to help you with some of this relocation info.

You can also always contact the DMV make sure you're getting correct info https://www.dmv.pa.gov/pages/Contact-Us.aspx

The NRC's response to Fukushima, despite the power companies wishes, seems to make them decently reliable in my eyes.

Although it is a pretty crazy coincidence that Nuclesr Power Companies and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission both hire experts in Nuclear energy.

It was on ABC nightly news

There's ways to complain about this situation without using the tragedy for people to get on a soapbox about their preferred political issue.

Better workers/unemployment benefits are needed and important but we don't even know what unemployment/benefits the workers will have access to. People are fired up over a hypothetical.

Of everything involved in this situation I'm not sure the most produdictive way to help the victims and their families is by trying to shame firefighters.

I like the ideas but there's a few issues. These are all kind of general platitudes and I'm not sure what the practical applications are. What does legislation look like that ends "misogynist anti-worker policy" or dangerous staffing across industries? What does direct action look like? Need more specifics.

The other question is why is this platform more effective than joining one of the many groups that are already engaged in promoting these ideas?

The story feels like outrage bait that gets the company some publicity. Yeah it sucks that some "not so nice" messages were sent but this is a non story.

But in all seriousness I would legit pay money to see the riot at a vegan festival that the goat owner was worried about.

I mean sure but there are people i know that are vegan except for their use of local honey. Are they no longer vegan because of this one exception?

I really can't beleive people think that's a body double. It's clearly just a lizard person that didn't properly adjust their meat suit.