1 3 4 5  7 8 » 43
I'm also ambivalent on the subject of the leadership responding ... to exercise leadership where it is to the overall good.

And who decides what is good?

That's one of those pat questions that has no answer. The concept is that we elect leaders that will act to the overall good. We are often fooled, but that's the concept.
As a serious question, it ranks up there with "Who died and left you in charge?".

Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Damn art, think of the money?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
"Fifth

But Sixth Form takes two years {that's why the last year should be called Seventh Form as has been done in New Zealand}.

In my British independent, or minor public, or whatever you call it these days, school, the Seventh Form was the third-year Sixth. I believe St Paul's called it "the Eighth".

They're a rum lot. They got that Erasmus chap from Holland to write their text-books, and as a result have a High Master.
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
In my British independent, or minor public, or whatever you ... third-year Sixth. I believe St Paul's called it "the Eighth".

My grammar school had so many pupils staying on for Oxford & Cambridge entrance exams after A-levels that they had a separate, named Year. So there was the Lower Sixth (what you might expect), the Middle Sixth (A-level year) and the Upper Sixth (post A-level).

Many of these school form (or class) names have slipped over the years so they no longer appear wholly sensible. The three named above were upper fifth and lower and upper sixth in my independent, minor public, or as I view it comprehensive, school. Comprehensive because it taught to a full range of abilities, provided only that pater had some oof.
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
The American people in general reject homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexuals. The President is following the will of the people in this. That's what an elected person is supposed to do.

Obviously Amnesty International was right that the US has problems with human rights.

People are more likely to change their religion
than change their writing system.
Charles Hockett, 1952
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
The American people in general reject homosexual marriage and adoption ... this. That's what an elected person is supposed to do.

Obviously Amnesty International was right that the US has problems with human rights.

You snipped the part of the post where I said that I have no objections to homosexual marriage. I don't however, see marriage as a "right". There are thousands of heterosexual couples in the US that have never bothered to avail themselves of the status of being married. They don't seem to be clamoring for their "rights".

Why would AI consider who gets to marry who as a human rights issue?

Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
My grammar school had so many pupils staying on for Oxford & Cambridge entrance exams after A-levels that they had a separate, named Year. So there was the Lower Sixth (what you might expect), the Middle Sixth (A-level year) and the Upper Sixth (post A-level).

Our sixth form (at a state grammar school) had VI(i), and VI(ii), but some of us, because of our age, or to take other A-Level subjects, also got to stay on in VI(iii). I was a little surprised that Hill School could get by with just a one year sixth form.
Fran
You snipped the part of the post where I said that I have no objections to homosexual marriage. I don't however, see marriage as a "right".

Clearly it's a "right" in some sense (a freedom granted or recognized by government to do something in this case, to enter into a marital arrangement as recognized by statute in whatever place you get married in). You probably mean that you don't think that marriage is a fundamental right, but ask yourself this: should a state have the power to ban all marriage? (Such a thing would be uncontroversially unconstitutional in the US.) If not, and you mean "not" in a positive rather than normative sense, then there's some sort of fundamental right to marriage.
Or how do you define "right"?
There are thousands of heterosexual couples in the US that have never bothered to avail themselves of the status of being married. They don't seem to be clamoring for their "rights".

But that's largely because most of them *do* have the right to get married.
There are some heterosexual couple categories who don't have the right to get married, but those are tiny constituencies (tinier than the population of homosexual couples, certainly) whom no one cares about or whom everyone across the political spectrum assumes shouldn't have any right to get married (e.g., brother-sister couples).
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
There are thousands of heterosexual couples in the US that ... married. They don't seem to be clamoring for their "rights".

But that's largely because most of them *do* have the right to get married.

No, it's primarily because most them don't think it's necessary.

Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Show more