If I had to guess, I'd say it's the refugees. Cologne had a fairly sizable Muslim population before the refugees. I read 12% of the population of the city somewhere but of course now I can't find it. Since the school headmaster specifically mentioned the refugees, I would think that is why they are changing the dress code, not just because of Muslims in general. I'm not sure if it's more disturbing. I think it is good if the school didn't feel any reason to tighten up the dress code because of the Muslims residents and citizens. It seems preferable that they are worried about one specific group rather than all male believers of a major religion. I don't know if there has been an actual problem with that specific group that the headmaster is referring to or not. If so, the solution to me would be to deal with the problem people in that particular spot rather than telling all girls to cover up. If there really are sexual predators in that housing facility wouldn't it be better to deal with them rather than allowing them to assault the female refugees too? And then the other option is what you mentioned - that the headmaster hates the refugees and/or was looking for an excuse to impose new dress code rules. Have you read any evidence of that? (Yes I did fire up my google search but my internet is testy with the storm we are having)

I'm actually in favor of most of those. I despise muscle shirts and half shirts (both pretty much boy clothes). Ewwwwww! I am fine with saying everyone has to wear short sleeves or longer, everyone has to have pants that are knee length, everyone has to keep their underwear under their clothes. If they are gender neutral and apply to everyone, I am okay with some rules. Just don't say girls better cover up so they don't ruin the boys. Hair length? Makeup? Um, no. I know that charter schools have a lot more leeway but hair length? Really?

My local schools don't have dress codes like that. We have gender neutral ones - belt if pants with belt loops, no profanity, etc. I would balk at gender specific dress codes in public schools. Do yours have those? I'm really surprised that would go over. Eta: you were adding to your post while I was responding to it. Now that I've read your clarification, I would say that is wrong. I would agree with no tank tops for anyone, no short shorts for anyone, etc.Just saying girls have to cover up because boys can't control themselves is wrong.

Yes and no. The school clearly did not have this dress code prior to being next to the refugee area. So obviously it's not because of boys in general. The headmaster specifically said this was because of these specific Syrian men. If he really believes that those men are a threat then I would suggest dealing with them rather than telling girls to cover up lest they drive the men to rape because they showed off too much leg. Just as I disagree with saying girls need to cover up so as to not distract boys, I completely disagree with girls need to cover up so that guys don't rape them. That's blaming the victim instead of dealing with the problem.

And I don't understand this thinking either. "Martin Thalhammer, the headmaster at Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium, a school in Pocking, Bavaria, sent a letter home to parents advising them that “Syrian citizens are mainly Muslims and speak Arabic. The refugees are marked by their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be adhered to, in order to avoid discrepancies. Revealing tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings.â€

There was a satirical pic going around suggesting that politicians wear outfits like race car drivers - with the names of their big sponsors (donors) all over them. I kinda like that idea.

I just don't understand her thought process. For example, this is what she said about the upcoming carnival festivities. "To prevent further violence in Cologne during the coming Carnival celebrations, when thousands of costumed revelers throng the streets for the beginning of Lent, which falls on Feb. 10 this year, Ms. Reker said that city officials would work to help women protect themselves and to explain the city’s attitudes and norms to newcomers. “We will explain our Carnival much better to people who come from other cultures,†she said, “so there won’t be any confusion about what constitutes celebratory behavior in Cologne, which has nothing to do with a sexual frankness.â€" If this is about refugees and/or newcomers, does she really think that they as a group believe that assaulting women is ok? If she really believes that that is the cultural norm where they come from then why on earth would she push to let them in to their country or city? (And clearly she is pro-refugee and has been attacked for that stance) Is there a culture that thinks that sexual assualt is just honky dory? Her comments also seem to presume that it was the newcomers rather who did the assaulting. Has any evidence been made public about that? It's just confusing. She seems both pro and anti-refugee and seems to blame the women for being vicitms. Eta: here is the link for the quote http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/europe/coordinated-attacks-on-women-in-cologne-were-unprecedented-germany-says.html?_r=0

What are you doing with the pineapples and why do you need to change the water on them? ;)

What does his being Mormon have to do with his racist rant?

Did yall see this? I confess I missed it. Who knew that the way to avoid sexual assualt was so easy. (Insert eye roll) "The mayor of Cologne on Wednesday offered some poorly received advice to female residents of her city after a wave of New Year's Eve attacks that shocked Germany. "There’s always the possibility of keeping a certain distance of more than an arm’s length — that is to say to make sure yourself you don’t look to be too close to people who are not known to you, and to whom you don’t have a trusting relationship," Henriette Reker said, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/06/after-wave-of-attacks-german-mayor-warns-women-to-keep-strangers-at-arms-length/

I love my pt jobs. I teach fitness classes- very fun and definitely not sitting in a chair like you mentioned you would prefer. My gym is always looking for water and yoga instructors both of which are great formats to start teaching. My second job is repping for a naturally based skin care and cosmetic line. It's very low pressure, fun and totally flexible. It's been really positive for me cause the ladies I work with are so good about helping each other learn and building each other up. I used to teach international cooking to kids. We would study a new country each week and make a few dishes from that country. During class I'd teach them about proper cooking technique and healthy eating.

I've never heard Mother Teresa called a narcissist.

This ia a good editorial on it. It is sympathetic to the underlying issues but rightly critical of the Bundys actions. "The proper remedy in a free society of laws is, as always, to be found in peaceful agitation and persuasion, and ultimately the ballot box. Play-acting a revolution will only bring derision — and should anyone take it too seriously, much worse." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/06/the_bundys_unlawful_and_distasteful_occupation_129222.html

I came across this article while I was doing some internet research. I think it does a good job of calmly explaining the side of the ranchers. I am in no way saying that it is unbiased. Simply posting because it helped me understand the thinking behind this. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

Lots of terrorist groups use social media to recruit so I don't think that the "I just posted on fb" defense works. And the riots were not limited to high school students nor did I see any evidence that the instigators were high schoolers. Ftr- I'm not trying to define the Baltimore rioters as terrorists. I think they are rioters. Just like I don't think the Oregon militia are terrorists at this point. They are protestors, possibly violent, definitely armed, but not terrorists.

Nm

Any other Romance language speakers find the name Malheur fitting?

I wasn't suggesting it was genius planning. Just saying that it wasn't spontaneous. Certain rabble rousers wanted to get a riot or "purge" going. There was intent by some to start a riot that would cause damage. And in looking back at the definition for domestic terrorism I didn't see advanced planning listed. I could certainly have missed it but this is all I saw. "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

According to the Baltimore Sun there was advanced planning and it wasn't just spontaneous. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-ci-school-emails-20150720-story.html

Liking this wasn't enough. If I could get my emojis working I would put that cute I agree emoji here.

Would the Baltimore rioters be considered domestic terrorists then? Their actions seem to fit the definition above. If so, why werent they labeled terrorists? I think the previous poster was absolutely right that when we agree with a cause, we are more apt to excuse it's tactics. And when we disagree with a cause or dislike the group involved in the cause (a few posters mentioned that this was just a bunch of white Christian boys throwing tantrums. And the racism goes both ways as I'm sure there were people against BLM because of prejudice.) we are quick to find fault with their tactics. Personally, I lose respect for groups when they commit or threaten violent actions- the Oregon group included. I think a lot of people do but the media loves it. It sells and gets people talking. So, what better way to get your issue out there then by doing something drastic. While I disagree with Osterweil on many points, he definitely has a point about the media attention. "In the piece, Osterweil says it is looters who turned Michael Brown's killing into a national issue. He wrote: 'If protesters hadn’t looted and burnt down that QuikTrip on the second day of protests, would Ferguson be a point of worldwide attention?' He concludes by praising looters for 'getting to the heart of' protests against heavy-handed policing. He wrote: 'When, in the midst of an anti-police protest movement, people loot, they aren’t acting non-politically, they aren’t distracting from the issue of police violence and domination, nor are they fanning the flames of an always-already racist media discourse. 'Instead, they are getting straight to the heart of the problem of the police, property, and white supremacy.'" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3266220/Black-Lives-Matter-activist-giving-Yale-lecture-defends-LOOTING-compares-protests-Boston-Tea-Party.html#ixzz3wNlOXQVk

You were in error in your judgement about me in your first response and yet again you rush to judgement and are dismissive in your second. Yes, clearly you do not want to actually discuss. So I'll just share a few facts. This is not a new idea. A brief Google search resulted in a good document from the ACLU about fees and protests. Many municipalities already have the fees I was talking about and that there have been successful challenges to excessive fees and waivers for groups that cannot afford it. Sounds like those who want to defray some costs are not ignorant of the possibility of using them to stifle dissent and have put some safeguards in place. Any regulation taken to extremes can cause problems. It does not follow that no regulations should be allowed. "Cities may charge for the actual costs of a demonstration, including the costs of processing permits, traffic control, certain narrow insurance requirements and some clean-up costs, but you may challenge excessive fees. Groups have successfully challenged burdensome fees by arguing that: The fee or costs have been imposed or increased because the content of the event is controversial and may provoke counter-demonstrations or require more police; The city's interests can be adequately protected without the fees; The regulation doesn't include a waiver for groups that can’t afford the charges and have no other way to publicize their views;" https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/free-speech-protests-demonstrations

Yes but other organizations made up of taxpayers have to pay fees and such to offset costs to the community when they hold public events.And often protestors aren't local taxpayers. Many people will come from other cities and states to join a cause they feel strongly about. For example, how many of the OWS protestors were NYC taxpayers? How many of the Oregon protestors are local taxpayers? Some percentage of course but a lot of people came from elsewhere to join the movement. That is great but it leaves local tax payers picking up the tab.

No. That's not what I said at all. How is having demonstration organizers help defray costs criminalizing protests?

I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that protestors should pay penalties. I meant that organizers of protests could help defraythe cost of police and other costs that taxpayers bear. I thought they did that in big organized protests and demonstrations in DC and others cities. In my mind I was thinking about large, organized, planned events not local protests.