clarityseeker22: Rather than get into an insult match, I'll just ask for clarification: What point are you trying to make by linking us to that study? You seem not to approve of marijuana legalization and to think that that study supports you, when really it suggests we make it harder for kids to get into their parents' supply, not that we make it harder for parents to get a supply.

Totally honest: I can't really tell what your argument is. Posts like: "Indeed-----and as evidenced by this study-----you and others fully endorse adding to this list-----particularly by irresponsible "adults" who care little for who gets caught up in their wake of wacky narcissism." This post is a mess. What list are we talking about? And what's being added to that list? What are these irresponsible "adults" particularly doing? That said, did study's author recommend keeping marijuana illegal just because kids could get into their parents' supply, or did he recommend a more sensible solution? (This is where we see if YOU are able to understand a "newly-released study," btw, so be careful how you answer)

So no one should be able to own pot because it can be dangerous to kids, particularly kids with irresponsible parents? Do you support absolute prohibition on soda, then? Or an amendment that would nullify the Second and prohibit guns?

Or soda. It's always weird to have to remind "conservatives" that if something can be dangerous if used irresponsibly, it can be more dangerous still to let the government have the power to take those things away from all of us. They never seem to need those reminders when we're talking about guns or soda - why do they need reminders when we're talking about marijuana?

The zealous advocacy and empathy for other bullied children are everywhere in the media. States are passing general bullying legislation left and right. It's a hot topic in education and the media. There have been at least two big documentaries in the past few years ("Bully" and "Cyberbully").

"It is not normal to have sexual orientation when you are a child. I know I was a child and did not think about sex or orientation. Children are innocent." The key here is how you define "child." You can be a Boy Scout until you're 18, and you can be a Venture Scout until you're 21. I don't think you can possibly be so ignorant as to say it's not normal for adolescent males to think about sex, so I'll just ask for clarification about what exactly you meant by your comment.

"I feel like a complete outcase in society and yet the homosexual community constantly complain about having it bad?" In a day and age where gay people are still beaten or killed relatively often for being gay, trust me - this line is not going to win you a lot of sympathy. They also have to put up with people like Barber, who, when gay teens are allowed into one of the most venerable support structures for young men in the country, says that the decision must be motivated by "PURE EVIL."

Because it's a co-ed Scouting program run by the BSA, and while that seems like it invites the same kind of impropriety Barber is allegedly so afraid of (but come on - he builds his career on being outraged by gay people, so does anyone pretend that he's anything but glad to have occasion to write another inflammatory article?), and yet the 260,000 Venture scouts seem to have avoided the moral black hole that Barber fears will swallow us all.

Stalin never said that.

But this is the part that all the Common Core articles on this site refuse to see: The federal government is not forcing anyone to use the Common Core. Let me say that again for the sake of clarity: The federal government is not forcing anyone to use the Common Core. You know, it's an important enough point to warrant a third: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU HATE OBAMA, IS NOT FORCING ANYONE TO USE THE COMMON CORE. If you have an issue with the CC - and there's a lot to take issue with, yes - then your issue is with your state government for choosing to adopt these standards. States were given a choice; if you want your state to make a different one, complaining about Obama and making it seem like you think Obama's responsible is hardly going to accomplish that. The state government will be glad that you're so misdirected that you don't blame them while they continue to pocket federal cash.

Don't blame the feds. They're not forcing anyone to do anything. It's the states who are choosing to adopt the Core; if they were a little less willing to sell out their rights to design their own curriculum, maybe the feds would have offered a better Common Core.