Someone argues that Lartin Luther King and Rosa Partks just broke laws because they didn't like them. A paragraph up

That's not what they did. The Brown decision made those loacl and state laws unconstitutional. They broke those laws to draw media attention and take the cases to federal court, to force the federal and state govenments to STOP enforcing ILLEGal laws. If a law is unconstitutional and you break it, you can challenge the Constitutionality in federal court. King and the movement leaders NEVER broke Constitutional laws. That's why you had a big fight between the true radicals and King at Selma. The more radical SNCC wanted King to ross Edmund Pettus Bridge in violation of a federal order, while the COnstitutionality of of the grandfather clause, the literacy test, and several other practices used in the South were considered. King won in the end, but he did that by NOT breaking the Constitutional federal order, while breaking the unconstitutional state segregation laws. Moreover, his restraint, and the restraint of the marchers, put the violence of the State police and the crazy county sheriff, Big Jim Clark, in stark relief. Non-violence highlights the issue, not the method.

When you start breaking constitutional laws, you go to jail, and the SUpreme COurt will not help you. Marijuana has been limited to a priviledge, not a right, in this country. I believe it should be legalized and regulated, like alcohol and cigarrettes. Polls and state initiatives to legalize marijuana say that most Americans agree with me. Most Americns do not think it is a right, and do not see armed people shooting at police as a smart way to persuade people.

Shooting at the police makes the protest method the issue, while covering the real issue. Constrast that to the immigration marches on the 1st of May. The peacefulness of the marches kept media and public focus on the issue of immigration, and not on the conduct of the protestors.

I have a needy older brother. After one particularly egregious piece of business, I took a break from the relationship. I would not talk to him, or return calls, after explaining once why the behavior was out of line and was not to be tolerated. This was the culmination of years of craziness. My family tried to punish me for it, because they enabled this stuff. He got the message, however. He treats me more respectfully, and we have a relationship.

We expect so much of families, more than we should. Take a break from the relationship, and see if you miss him. Tell him once, by letter or phone, what behaviors are interfering in the relationship, and what you expect from him. Then drop it.

He's 35. You don't have to enable his bad behavior. You don't have to cut him off. You do get the right to tell him "Step up and stop acting like a wuss".

People do long deployments in the military and stay together. There are 2 and 3 year hardship deployments without spouses. To assume a marriage can not survive such a separation is not founded in evidence. WHO and other international AID workers do this all of the time, as do State Department workers.

There's therapy and other ways to make the transistion easier and keep them together.

This could be the best thing that happens to the, SHe will grow and appreciate the complexity of the world. They will not be in each other's pockets, where they can get on each other's nerves. They will be different enough to be interesting.

All of the negativity, based on anecdotal evidence, is not warranted. Not all, or even most, Peace Corps people go sexually crazy or divorce. In different, and especially sexually conservative countries, the bed hopping is not an option. In war zones (and rebels don't always give warning before they run into neighboring countires) sex is not the most important thing going on.

This is a very distorted discussion. I hope they talk to a counselor.

My brother did go loco when my younger brother died. I mean, seriously, other relatives coming up and going WTF loco. Still, grief is not an excuse to act like an ass.

DOn't enable bad behavior.

I am in a family friendly workplace. Actually, it's a life and sanity friendly workplace, as my husband's is. The bosses assume the single people and parents actually have to get home to grocery shop, exercise, clean their houses, or ENJOY time away from work. If you are working excessive hours you are 1. disorganized 2. have no life, with corresponding bad judgement.

We do some work from home, single and married. I have covered for single people traveling on conference; they have covered for me on conference, too. I have a child, and the net means I have more flexibility. I do sometimes have to be out for my job at night, but my hubby gets "man time" with his friends away from us as well.

No one should be in the office at 6 unless they are teaching a night class, like me. No one should be working a Blackberry or conference call in the bathroom (I had one employer where I saw that al of the time.)

Instead of single versus married, we need sanity versus exploitation. When anyone works 60-80 hours a week, their health suffers, they get more stress. Then again, if more people minded their own business at the office and did their work instead of socializing and playing around on the net, they could get home on time.