One of the hurdles is that according to the bill the school boards, the same ones that removed swings from the playgrounds because of the risk of injury, and prohibit dodge ball because it encourages aggressive behavior, are the ones that will be responsible for coming up with a state approved 30 minute exercise program for the kids.
I'm thinking that the exercise isn't going to be activities such as "Red Rover", "Duck, Duck, Goose" or kickball so much as low impact stretching exercises. Just think of the problems they'd be setting themselves up for if one of the obese children dropped from a heart condition while performing Jack LaLanne styled calisthenics, or relay races. In an era of purple ink to protect self image, we certainly can't sanction activities at school where scores are kept, or there are winners and losers determined. Why, if red ink harms self image, imagine the damage losing, or coming in last in a race might do to it. No, we can't have something with the potential to damage the self image of a child as part of their daily exercise routine mandated by the state laws, so we'd have to find something safe, where no one wins, where there isn't a possibility of them actually injuring themselves while exercising. How many activities can you come up with that lets boys be boys that fits that description?
CriticalBill wrote: I have a problem with your headline Dog. You are attempting to paint EVERY Republican with the same broad brush by saying "and you wonder why Republicans are not taken seriously". Why not address what this ONE Republican is saying instead of making it look like ALL have the same opinion?
If I had a thread called "Why do Muslims want to kill us?" you would be all over me like stink on a turd. This is a problem most of us have on these forums and it only makes the divide wider. Unless you can show that the majority of Republicans share the view of this Senator, it's really just a rant against ONE guy. I personally see nothing wrong with the proposed legislation and you should know by now that I'm no Democrat.
I doubt this would turn boys into sissys, but I do think our society has moved toward feminizing boys by eliminating the best games like dodgeball
I would take your criticism more seriously if you posed the same objection to the many posters here who paint all "liberals" or Democrats with an equally broad brush, or if you would take to task the "conservatives" here who advocate violence and death to those who do not share their political beliefs.
But to show you yet another example of the mindset of another Republican:
New Hampshire Republican Lawmaker "Omand told Foster's that Harty told her he disagreed with her about the need for funds for mental health services and he believed in eugenics.
"The world population has gotten too big and the world is being inherited by too many defective people," he told her.
Omand said she asked him to clarify if he meant mentally ill and developmentally disabled and he responded, "I mean all the defective people, the drug addicts, mentally ill, the retarded — all of them."
"I asked what we should do with them," Omand said, and Harty said, "I believe if we had a Siberia we should send them to this and they would all freeze and die and we will be rid of them."
Harty confirmed his comments in an interview with Foster's Daily Democrat late Thursday afternoon."
PrintSmith wrote: One of the hurdles is that according to the bill the school boards, the same ones that removed swings from the playgrounds because of the risk of injury, and prohibit dodge ball because it encourages aggressive behavior, are the ones that will be responsible for coming up with a state approved 30 minute exercise program for the kids.
I'm thinking that the exercise isn't going to be activities such as "Red Rover", "Duck, Duck, Goose" or kickball so much as low impact stretching exercises. Just think of the problems they'd be setting themselves up for if one of the obese children dropped from a heart condition while performing Jack LaLanne styled calisthenics, or relay races. In an era of purple ink to protect self image, we certainly can't sanction activities at school where scores are kept, or there are winners and losers determined. Why, if red ink harms self image, imagine the damage losing, or coming in last in a race might do to it. No, we can't have something with the potential to damage the self image of a child as part of their daily exercise routine mandated by the state laws, so we'd have to find something safe, where no one wins, where there isn't a possibility of them actually injuring themselves while exercising. How many activities can you come up with that lets boys be boys that fits that description?
The proposed legislation allows local school boards to develop programs. Why is it necessary to only have those activities that allow "boys to be boys", why not focus on those activities that will best provide physical exercise to students? Is it better to deny the opportunity for the benefits from exercise rather than risk having "sissy" boys?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
PrintSmith wrote: One of the hurdles is that according to the bill the school boards, the same ones that removed swings from the playgrounds because of the risk of injury, and prohibit dodge ball because it encourages aggressive behavior, are the ones that will be responsible for coming up with a state approved 30 minute exercise program for the kids.
I'm thinking that the exercise isn't going to be activities such as "Red Rover", "Duck, Duck, Goose" or kickball so much as low impact stretching exercises. Just think of the problems they'd be setting themselves up for if one of the obese children dropped from a heart condition while performing Jack LaLanne styled calisthenics, or relay races. In an era of purple ink to protect self image, we certainly can't sanction activities at school where scores are kept, or there are winners and losers determined. Why, if red ink harms self image, imagine the damage losing, or coming in last in a race might do to it. No, we can't have something with the potential to damage the self image of a child as part of their daily exercise routine mandated by the state laws, so we'd have to find something safe, where no one wins, where there isn't a possibility of them actually injuring themselves while exercising. How many activities can you come up with that lets boys be boys that fits that description?
The proposed legislation allows local school boards to develop programs. Why is it necessary to only have those activities that allow "boys to be boys", why not focus on those activities that will best provide physical exercise to students? Is it better to deny the opportunity for the benefits from exercise rather than risk having "sissy" boys?
Tell me Dog, how much benefit is derived from exercise when one is not pushing themselves? Oh sure, I can do windmills, or jumping jacks without putting any effort into it and derive minimal benefit, but isn't the concept premised upon the idea of having children enjoying what they are doing so that it is something they will look forward to participating in and perhaps engage in similar behavior away from the school environment? Will they not get more benefit from the exercise when it is an invigorating game of dodgeball than they will if they are not putting effort into the jumping jacks? The purpose of the exercise at a young age is to have fun, and young boys have a lot more fun playing dodgeball than they do yoga stretches. They will be much more likely to continue the good habit of exercise in the future if the exercise involves their young minds and they are doing something that they enjoy. Are we trying to educate or simply comply with yet another governmental mandate to ensure the continued flow of revenue from the source that comes from consolidation of power into larger entities of government than should be involved in the process at all?
PrintSmith wrote: One of the hurdles is that according to the bill the school boards, the same ones that removed swings from the playgrounds because of the risk of injury, and prohibit dodge ball because it encourages aggressive behavior, are the ones that will be responsible for coming up with a state approved 30 minute exercise program for the kids.
I'm thinking that the exercise isn't going to be activities such as "Red Rover", "Duck, Duck, Goose" or kickball so much as low impact stretching exercises. Just think of the problems they'd be setting themselves up for if one of the obese children dropped from a heart condition while performing Jack LaLanne styled calisthenics, or relay races. In an era of purple ink to protect self image, we certainly can't sanction activities at school where scores are kept, or there are winners and losers determined. Why, if red ink harms self image, imagine the damage losing, or coming in last in a race might do to it. No, we can't have something with the potential to damage the self image of a child as part of their daily exercise routine mandated by the state laws, so we'd have to find something safe, where no one wins, where there isn't a possibility of them actually injuring themselves while exercising. How many activities can you come up with that lets boys be boys that fits that description?
The proposed legislation allows local school boards to develop programs. Why is it necessary to only have those activities that allow "boys to be boys", why not focus on those activities that will best provide physical exercise to students? Is it better to deny the opportunity for the benefits from exercise rather than risk having "sissy" boys?
Tell me Dog, how much benefit is derived from exercise when one is not pushing themselves? Oh sure, I can do windmills, or jumping jacks without putting any effort into it and derive minimal benefit, but isn't the concept premised upon the idea of having children enjoying what they are doing so that it is something they will look forward to participating in and perhaps engage in similar behavior away from the school environment? Will they not get more benefit from the exercise when it is an invigorating game of dodgeball than they will if they are not putting effort into the jumping jacks? The purpose of the exercise at a young age is to have fun, and young boys have a lot more fun playing dodgeball than they do yoga stretches. They will be much more likely to continue the good habit of exercise in the future if the exercise involves their young minds and they are doing something that they enjoy. Are we trying to educate or simply comply with yet another governmental mandate to ensure the continued flow of revenue from the source that comes from consolidation of power into larger entities of government than should be involved in the process at all?
What does any of that have to do with denying the benefits of physical exercise to school children based on the reasoning that sissy boys might result?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
CriticalBill wrote: I have a problem with your headline Dog. You are attempting to paint EVERY Republican with the same broad brush by saying "and you wonder why Republicans are not taken seriously". Why not address what this ONE Republican is saying instead of making it look like ALL have the same opinion?
If I had a thread called "Why do Muslims want to kill us?" you would be all over me like stink on a turd. This is a problem most of us have on these forums and it only makes the divide wider. Unless you can show that the majority of Republicans share the view of this Senator, it's really just a rant against ONE guy. I personally see nothing wrong with the proposed legislation and you should know by now that I'm no Democrat.
I doubt this would turn boys into sissys, but I do think our society has moved toward feminizing boys by eliminating the best games like dodgeball
I would take your criticism more seriously if you posed the same objection to the many posters here who paint all "liberals" or Democrats with an equally broad brush,
CriticalBill wrote: This is a problem most of us have on these forums and it only makes the divide wider.
I think you missed the part where I said this ^^^ . I'm trying to NOT do this, I hope it catches on but I really doubt it will. The nastiest posters here use broad generalizations in almost every post. We really need an emoticon for that because it really gets tiresome pointing it out all the time.
